HKSAR v. Wong Pak Lam

DCCC 1088/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1088 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to the two charges he faces today.

2.The facts of this case are very straightforward.  On 5 May last year the defendant was driving along Lau Fau Shan Road, Yuen Long.  Where the accident took place was a straight road. A minibus stopped in front of the defendant.  We assume it was to let passengers on or off but no one can verify this because no minibus driver will co-operate or come forward.  I also note from the sketch that where the minibus stopped was metres from a bus stop where he could have pulled in off the road.

3.The defendant made a decision to overtake the minibus on double white lines.  He did this after checking there were no cars coming the other way.  However, he did not think that it is possible a pedestrian might cross in front of the minibus.  Sadly, if the minibus had stopped further ahead in a bus stop this accident would not have occurred.  The young victim rushed out to cross the road but did it in front of the minibus just as the defendant overtook the minibus and he hit the victim.

4.The victim suffered a serious leg injury.  It took several operations and some time to heal before he was discharged from hospital.  I have been informed today that he is now back at school and recovering well.  Hopefully he will make a full recovery.

5.In these facts no aggravating factors exist. One could say the facts of this case put it in the lowest category for offences of this nature.  It is not as serious as jumping red lights or speeding through pedestrian crossings, or driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

6.The defendant has pleaded guilty.  He obviously assisted the victim at the scene.  His remorse is blatant.  After his arrest he made a full admission of his error to the police.

7.A term of imprisonment would be appropriate but at the same time it would not be beyond the realms of possibility or appropriateness to consider a Community Service Order. 

8.The defendant has a very minor criminal record - it must be minor because he was only fined $500, and he has been driving for 33 years and he does not have any traffic convictions.  The most serious matter was a speeding ticket and that was a fixed penalty ticket, so seeing as I consider a Community Service Order not completely out of the question I will call first for such a report.

9.The defendant must be aware and bear in mind that all sentencing options will remain open until the adjournment date, and I will revoke bail at this stage. 

Court adjourns - 10.36 am

1 March 2013

15 March 2013

Court resumes – 9.38 am

Defendant present. Appearances as before (Mr Vincent Lee absent. Ms Irene Poon, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR).

1. I adjourned on the last occasion for a Community Service Order report. I did go through my reasons for calling for such a report. There were several factors that influenced that decision. Firstly, the defendant’s plea and obvious remorse, that there were no aggravating factors that existed in the facts of the case, I considered the act of dangerous driving which was overtaking on a straight road but over double white lines.

2. I will repeat that this accident occurred because initially a minibus had stopped not in the lay-by which was very close by just ahead and therefore blocking the road. The defendant said the vehicle in front of him overtook the minibus. The defendant then made the decision to follow that vehicle and this was the act of dangerous driving. Unfortunately at just that moment the victim stepped out in front of the minibus into the defendant’s lane and he was hit by the defendant. He did suffer serious injury. He is recovering and hopefully will make a full recovery.

3. I heard full mitigation on the last occasion and I considered the background of the defendant. He has been a hard-working, law-abiding family man. He has had a driving license for 33 years, and it is a clean license.

4. For all the above reasons I considered a Community Service Order report and I have it before today. The probation officer, having seen the defendant and his wife, is of the view that he is suitable for community service, and after careful consideration, despite the seriousness of the offence, I intend to follow the Community Service Order report.

5. For Charge 1, the defendant will be sentenced to 200 hours of community service. The defendant is warned that if he does not complete this Community Service Order to the satisfaction of the probation officer, the court does have the discretion to discharge the order and re-sentence the defendant.

6. For Charge 1, the defendant is also disqualified from driving any class vehicle for a period of 2 years from today. The defendant, before he can have his license returned to him at the end of this disqualification period must complete a driving improvement course. According to the law he must complete this test within the last 3 months of the disqualification period. If you do not complete the driving improvement course it will affect the return of your license and may also constitute an offence. Do you understand that?

DEFENDANT: I understand.

7. Charge 2, I impose a fine. The defect of your vehicle had nothing to do with the accident and I impose a fine of $500.