HKSAR v. Qasim-rehman

DCCC416/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 416 OF 2012

----------------------

----------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1.The defendant was convicted of one count of dangerous driving causing death and one count of using a defective vehicle after trial.

2.The facts of the case are set out in my judgment and I do not propose to repeat them here.

The defendant’s background and mitigation

3.The defendant is 22 years old.  He came to Hong Kong in 2007.  He is single and works as an office assistant.  His father is arranging a marriage for the defendant early next year, but that would have to be postponed.

4.The defendant has a clear record but has 9 previous traffic convictions, one of which is similar in nature to Charge 2 in the present case.

5.Counsel submitted that the defendant is remorseful.  He has been having nightmares and he now hardly drives.  Although his injuries appeared minor, he was hospitalized for 13 days and is still suffering from leg pain.  Counsel urged the court to be lenient.

Sentence

6.In passing sentence, I have considered everything said on the defendant’s behalf, the facts of the case and the authorities cited.

7.Counsel submitted that the facts of this case are not the most serious of its kind and there are no aggravating factors.  I disagree with that.

8.Unlike the facts in Lei Tin Seng [2011] 1 HKLRD 341, the defendant and the bus were repeatedly cutting across the two lanes at high speed.  They were effectively racing thereby causing a substantial risk to other road users.  He was driving a defective vehicle, there was no speedometer hand and the defendant clearly had no idea at what speed he was going.

9.A life has been taken but the defendant has not shown a shred of remorse in the present trial.  He has committed 9 traffic offences between 2009 and 2012.  He has repeatedly ignored speed limits, traffic signals or markings even after the accident in the present case. 

10.In all the circumstances I adopt the starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment for Charge 1.  The defendant is disqualified from holding or obtaining any driver’s licence for 4 years and until the completion of a driving improvement course, whichever is the later.  I will explain that later.

11.The defendant was convicted after trial and is not entitled to any discount.  The defendant has one record of a nature similar to Charge 2.  Not only was the defendant using the vehicle in the absence of a speedometer hand in the present case, he was using the vehicle in a dangerous manner.

12.For Charge 2, I adopt the starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment.  The defendant is not entitled to any discount.

13.Both charges are part and parcel of the same incident, I order that the sentences of both charges to be served concurrently.  That makes a total sentence of 3 years.

14.Defendant, I am now going to explain to you the driving improvement course and the period of disqualification.  That means you are disqualified for a minimum of 4 years from today.  You are not to hold or obtain any driver’s licence of any class in these 4 years.  You should complete the driving improvement course at your own cost within 3 months of the expiry of the disqualification period.  If you do not complete the driving improvement course, you will not be able to get back your licence even after the expiry of 4 years.  And the period of expiry will be until the end of 4 years or until the completion of the driving improvement course, whichever is the later.  So unless you complete the driving improvement course, even after 4 years you will not be able to get your licence and you are not allowed to drive.  Is that clear?

DEFENDANT: Yes.