A A
B B
DCCC 587/2013
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL ACTION NO 587 OF 2013 E
F F
---------------------
G HKSAR G
v
H H
YEUNG CHI TIM
I --------------------- I
J J
Before : Deputy District Judge W T So
K Date : 27 September 2013 at 2:32 pm K
Present: Ms Priscilla Lam, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
L L
Mr Ng Man Sang, Alan, instructed by CK Mok & Co,
M assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant M
Offences: [1] & [4] Driving without a valid driving licence（駕駛時無
N N
有效駕駛執照）
O O
[2] & [5] Using a motor vehicle without third party insurance
P （沒有第三者保險而使用汽車） P
[3] Dangerous driving（危險駕駛）
Q Q
[6] Wilfully obstructing a police officer in the due execution
R of his duty（故意阻撓在正當執行職務的警務人員） R
S [7] Possession of a prohibited weapon（管有違禁武器） S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
[8] Possession of an offensive weapon in a public place（在
C 公眾地方管有攻擊性武器） C
[9] Going equipped for stealing （外出時備有偷竊用的物
D D
品）
E E
F -------------------------------------- F
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
G G
--------------------------------------
H H
1. The defendant faced nine charges. He pleaded guilty to
I I
Charges 1 to 8 but not guilty to Charge 9. Upon conviction, Charge 9, the
J going equipped for stealing charge, was ordered to be kept on court file and J
not to be proceeded with without the leave of the court.
K K
L 2. Charges 1 and 2 alleged that on 24 February 2013 the L
defendant was driving without a valid driving licence 1 and third party
M M
insurance2. Charges 3 to 8 arose from another incident occurred on 8 April
N 2013 in which he was alleged to be driving dangerously 3 (Charge 3) N
without a valid licence and third party insurance (Charges 4 and 5). In the
O O
course of the incident, it was also alleged that he willfully obstructed PW1
P in the due execution of his duty 4 (Charge 6). A prohibited weapon 5 , P
namely a nunchaku, a Chinese-style fighting iron (Charge 7) and an
Q Q
6
offensive weapon , namely a machete (Charge 8) were found inside the
R boot of the defendant’s car. R
S 1 S
contrary to s 42(1) and (4) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374
2
contrary to s 4(1) and (2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, Cap 272
3
contrary to s 37(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374
T 4
contrary to s 36(b) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212 T
5
contrary to s 4 of the Weapons Ordinance, Cap 217
6
contrary to s 33(1) of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap 245
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
C Facts C
D D
Charges 1 and 2
E E
3. At 0123 hours on 24 February 2013, the defendant who
F F
possessed no valid driving licence but a learner’s licence was stopped in a
G police road block operation in Shamshuipo when he was allegedly having a G
joy ride with his friend. He was arrested for Charges 1 and 2 and was later
H H
released on police bail in the sum of HK$4,000.
I I
Charges 3 to 6
J J
K 4. At 1017 hours on 8 April 2013, PW1, a police officer on K
motorbike patrol along Ma Tau Kok Road, saw a private car displaying
L L
registration number RS5309 (“the Car”) jumped red light twice, first at the
M junction of Kowloon City Road and again at the junction of Pau Chung M
Street at a speed of 10 to 20 km/h in excess of the speed limit of 50 km/h.
N N
PW1 immediately switched on the siren and gave chase.
O O
5. At the junction of Ma Tau Kok Road and Pak Tai Street, the
P P
Car had to pull up behind a taxi in the offside lane as the lanes were
Q occupied by taxi stopping for the red light. PW1 then drove up to the Q
driver’s door and found that the defendant was at the wheel with no person
R R
on board. The window on the driver’s side was opened. At the same time,
S PW1 tried to intercept him but he refused to obey the command. PW1 at S
once signaled the other cars to remain stationary in order to avoid him from
T T
moving forward.
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
6. After that, PW1 alighted from his bike and attempted to
C C
remove the ignition key of the Car but he immediately wound up the
D window. PW1 withdrew his hand and opened the driver’s door. He closed D
the door at once.
E E
F F
7. Suddenly the defendant put into reverse gear, PW1 jumped
G
onto the kerb. The Car then moved backwards at high speed. As a result, G
the left rear of the Car hit the right front of a public light bus which had no
H H
passenger on board. After 1st collision, the Car moved forward hitting the
I railing on the offside kerb. As a result, the front bumper of the Car was I
dislocated.
J J
K 8. The Car did not stop but moved backwards at high speed K
again. Eventually it hit the front of a stationary medium goods vehicle in
L L
the middle lane. The impact from the collision causing that medium goods
M vehicle to move backwards hitting a taxi right behind. The taxi had no M
passenger on board.
N N
O 9. The Car then moved backwards swerving to the left and O
mounted the offside kerb hitting the railing again. Following that, the Car
P P
crashed from the offside kerb across the offside and middle lanes into the
Q nearside lane. The Car swerved abruptly to the left, swiping the offside of Q
a stationary private car and travelled into near side lane against the traffic
R R
direction at a speed of about 50 km/h. The Car finally turned right into Pau
S Chung Street. PW1 lost sight of it. S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
Charges 7 and 8
C C
10. At about 1020 hours on the same day, the Car was located by
D D
police at a parking space on Ma Hang Chung Road where it was about 200
E meters away from the location in question. At that time, the engine of the E
Car was still running but no one was found on board.
F F
G 11. Upon search, a blue nylon bag containing one 12 inches long G
nunchaku, the subject matter of Charge 7, and one 26 inches long machete,
H H
the subject matter of Charge 8, were found inside the boot of the Car.
I I
12. The incident had caused damage to 4 vehicles and the total
J J
repair cost was HK$24,800.
K K
13. On the same day, the driver involved in the 1st Collision was
L L
admitted into A&E Department of Queen Elizabeth Hospital. He was
M diagnosed to have tenderness on his neck and back. M
N N
14. On 9 April 2013, the defendant was arrested. During
O subsequent video- recorded interviews, he under caution admitted that he O
borrowed the Car from a friend named “Ah Shan” at 11pm on 7 April 2013
P P
and that he received a bag containing the weapons in question from his
Q friend “Ah Ping” for temporary storage at the boot of the Car. He admitted Q
the offences.
R R
S 15. Upon examination, the nunchaku, weighed 482 grammes, S
was found to be comprised of 2 hollow steel handles, one of approximately
T T
30 cm in length and the other of 27.5 cm in length, connected by a metal
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
chain of approximately 19.5 cm. The links on the chain were covered by
C adhesive tape. It was commercially produced and purpose-built for use as C
a flail-type weapon. It was also known as a Chinese style-fighting iron
D D
prohibited under the Prohibited Weapons Ordinance, Cap 217.
E E
Sketches
F F
G 16. At the hearing, Ms. Lam for the prosecution submitted 5 G
sketches to demonstrate the movement of the Car at the material time. She
H H
confirmed that the CCTV footage as mentioned in paragraph 31 of the
I Summary of Facts did not depict the actual movement of the Car in the I
course of the incident.
J J
K Mitigation K
L L
17. The defendant aged 22 was educated up to Form 2. His father
M aged 50 is a decoration worker and his mother aged 45 is a housewife. He M
is the eldest among 3 siblings. Prior to arrest, he worked as a causal
N N
decoration worker earning about HK$8,000 each month.
O O
18. He has 4 previous criminal records. In 2006, he was
P P
convicted of 3 counts of Robbery and 1 count of Theft for which he was
Q put on a probation order for 18 months. In 2010, he committed an offence Q
of Conspiracy to Burglary and received a term of 2 years’ imprisonment.
R R
In 2011, he was sentenced to 2 months for possession of dangerous drugs.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
Sentence
C C
19. For the offences in this case, there are no established
D D
sentencing tariffs. I have carefully considered all the cases referred to by
E the prosecution and the defence7. E
F F
20. As to Charges 1 and 2, they were committed when the
G defendant allegedly having a joy ride and at the time of the offences he had G
no similar previous record. Hence I adopt a starting point of 6 weeks for
H H
Charge 1 and 3 months for Charge 2. As to Charges 4 and 5, they were
I committed whilst on police bail. I cannot lose sight of the fact that the I
victims involved in the incident were left without third party insurance
J J
protection. I adopt a starting point of 9 weeks for Charge 4 and 6 months
K for Charge 5. K
L L
21. For Charge 3 dangerous driving, Mr Ng, counsel for the
M defendant, with his customary industrious effort, referred me to HKSAR v M
Lam Shun Choi CACC 402/ 2012. In Lam’s case, the applicant, in an
N N
attempt to avoid apprehension, drove through 3 sets of traffic lights with
O excessive speed and then drove onto the pavement where a pedestrian was O
hit. The starting point of 2 years and 3 months was upheld.
P P
Q Q
R R
7
S SJ v Ko Wai Kit [2001] 3 HKLRD 751; HKSAR v Tang Chen Ming [2003] 1 HKC 515; SJ v Poon Wing S
Kay [2007] 1 HKLRD 661; SJ v Lam Siu Tong [2009] 5 HKLRD 601; SJ v Wong Wai Hung [2011] 2
HKC 224; HKSAR v Lee Yau Wing CACC 282/ 2012; HKSAR v Lam Shun Choi CACC 402/ 2012;
T HKSAR v Lee Chun Kit HCMA 1007/ 2003; HKSAR v 盧旻駿 HCMA 718/ 2012; HKSAR v Ip Chi Wang T
HCMA 377/ 2003
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
22. The gravamen of our present case lies upon the facts that:-
C C
(a) the defendant, without a valid driving licence, was an
D D
unqualified, incompetent and inexperienced driver;
E (b) his driving was a “prolonged, persistent and deliberate E
course of very bad driving”. He irresponsibly drove
F F
through 2 sets of traffic lights in excessive speed. In
G order to avoid lawful apprehension, he put the Car in G
“reverse” at high speed against traffic direction,
H H
causing 3 direct and 1 indirect collisions involving 4
I vehicles, in a crowded area. It was deliberate and, in I
my view, a ruthless and selfish disregard to the safety
J J
of PW1, other road-users and pedestrians, posing an
K imminent danger on the road; K
(c) though minor injuries were caused to the public light
L L
bus driver, it was only fortuitous that there was no
M passenger on board of the bus and taxi involved in the M
collisions. By looking at the photos depicting the
N N
condition of the Car after the incident, it is not difficult
O to imagine that the force arising from the collisions and O
impact was extremely great;
P P
(d) the offence was committed whilst on police bail.
Q Q
23. Having considered the aggravating features of this case, I
R R
adopt a starting point of 2 years and 3 months for Charge 3.
S S
24. Of Charge 6, the defendant willfully and repeatedly
T T
disobeyed and ignored the commands of PW1. He demonstrated a
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
complete disrespect to the law and law enforcement agent. A sentence of
C deterrent effect should be imposed so as to send a stark message to the C
public that every police officer in the execution of his/her duty must be
D D
respected and protected. The seriousness of the offence, in my view, is not
E dependent upon the number of police officer involved but upon the manner E
of which an offender obstructs the execution of police duty. The defendant
F F
deliberately wound up the window, closed the driver’s door and put into
G reverse gear regardless of PW1’s safety. The obstruction was not one-off, G
it was persistent. I adopt a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment.
H H
I 25. Of Charges 7 and 8, I have examined the weapons in question. I
The nunchaku is steel-made. When used in an attack, the force which will
J J
be generated by an act of swinging can no doubt cause serious harm to
K others. As to the machete, it is an offensive weapon per se. It is a lethal K
weapon that can cause serious injuries or even death when it is being used
L L
in a fight or confrontation. Furthermore, given the alleged background as
M to how the defendant came into possession of these weapons and his triad M
affiliation as stated in his Antecedent Statement, the risk of going into
N N
wrong hands is enormous and real. I have considered all the cases referred
O to by Mr Ng8. However, the size and conditions of each weapon involved O
in different cases differs and the circumstances under which the offenders
P P
came into possession of them varies. A direct comparison with cases of
Q different factual matrix is of little assistance in sentencing. Having Q
considered all the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 9 months for
R R
Charge 7 and 15 months for Charge 8.
S S
T T
8
HKSAR v Lee Chun Kit, supra; HKSAR v 盧旻駿, supra; HKSAR v Ip Chi Wang,supra
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
Disqualification
C C
26. Disqualification order is mandatory for Charges 2, 3 and 5
D D
upon conviction. Such order is “forward-looking and preventive”, instead
E of “backward-looking and punitive”. In considering the appropriate length E
of disqualification, the length of imprisonment term should be taken into
F F
account otherwise it may serve no actual and practical purpose. Having
G considered all the circumstances, I impose a disqualification order for a G
period of 12 months for Charge 2, 4 years for Charge 3 and 18 months for
H H
Charge 5. Since the defendant holds no valid driving licence, a driving test
I order is unnecessary. I
J J
27. To reflect his guilty plea, the respective sentences are as
K follows: Charge 1 - 4 weeks’ imprisonment; Charge 2 - 2 months’ K
imprisonment, together with a disqualification order from holding or
L L
obtaining a driving licence for all classes of vehicles for a period of 12
M months; Charge 3 - 18 months’ imprisonment, together with a M
disqualification order from holding or obtaining a driving licence for all
N N
classes of vehicles for a period of 4 years; Charge 4 - 6 weeks’
O imprisonment; Charge 5 - 4 months’ imprisonment, together with a O
disqualification order from holding or obtaining a driving licence for all
P P
classes of vehicles for a period of 18 months; Charge 6 - 8 months’
Q imprisonment; Charge 7 - 6 months’ imprisonment; Charge 8 - 10 months’ Q
imprisonment.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
Totality
C C
28. Regarding the totality principle, I order the sentences of
D D
Charges 1 to 5 be run concurrently, ie a total sentence of 18 months’
E imprisonment. The obstructing and weapons charges were not part and E
parcel of the driving offences. They were separate matters. Having
F F
considered totality, I order 4 months of Charge 6, 3 months of Charge 7
G and 5 months of Charge 8 be run consecutive to the overall sentence of G
Charges 1 to 5. In the result, the defendant is sentenced to 30 months’
H H
imprisonment, reflecting a notional overall starting point of 3 years and 9
I months, together with a disqualification order from holding or obtaining a I
driving licence for all classes of vehicles for a period of 4 years.
J J
K K
L L
M
( W T So ) M
Deputy District Judge
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 587/2013
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL ACTION NO 587 OF 2013 E
F F
---------------------
G HKSAR G
v
H H
YEUNG CHI TIM
I --------------------- I
J J
Before : Deputy District Judge W T So
K Date : 27 September 2013 at 2:32 pm K
Present: Ms Priscilla Lam, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
L L
Mr Ng Man Sang, Alan, instructed by CK Mok & Co,
M assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant M
Offences: [1] & [4] Driving without a valid driving licence（駕駛時無
N N
有效駕駛執照）
O O
[2] & [5] Using a motor vehicle without third party insurance
P （沒有第三者保險而使用汽車） P
[3] Dangerous driving（危險駕駛）
Q Q
[6] Wilfully obstructing a police officer in the due execution
R of his duty（故意阻撓在正當執行職務的警務人員） R
S [7] Possession of a prohibited weapon（管有違禁武器） S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
[8] Possession of an offensive weapon in a public place（在
C 公眾地方管有攻擊性武器） C
[9] Going equipped for stealing （外出時備有偷竊用的物
D D
品）
E E
F -------------------------------------- F
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
G G
--------------------------------------
H H
1. The defendant faced nine charges. He pleaded guilty to
I I
Charges 1 to 8 but not guilty to Charge 9. Upon conviction, Charge 9, the
J going equipped for stealing charge, was ordered to be kept on court file and J
not to be proceeded with without the leave of the court.
K K
L 2. Charges 1 and 2 alleged that on 24 February 2013 the L
defendant was driving without a valid driving licence 1 and third party
M M
insurance2. Charges 3 to 8 arose from another incident occurred on 8 April
N 2013 in which he was alleged to be driving dangerously 3 (Charge 3) N
without a valid licence and third party insurance (Charges 4 and 5). In the
O O
course of the incident, it was also alleged that he willfully obstructed PW1
P in the due execution of his duty 4 (Charge 6). A prohibited weapon 5 , P
namely a nunchaku, a Chinese-style fighting iron (Charge 7) and an
Q Q
6
offensive weapon , namely a machete (Charge 8) were found inside the
R boot of the defendant’s car. R
S 1 S
contrary to s 42(1) and (4) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374
2
contrary to s 4(1) and (2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, Cap 272
3
contrary to s 37(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374
T 4
contrary to s 36(b) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212 T
5
contrary to s 4 of the Weapons Ordinance, Cap 217
6
contrary to s 33(1) of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap 245
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
C Facts C
D D
Charges 1 and 2
E E
3. At 0123 hours on 24 February 2013, the defendant who
F F
possessed no valid driving licence but a learner’s licence was stopped in a
G police road block operation in Shamshuipo when he was allegedly having a G
joy ride with his friend. He was arrested for Charges 1 and 2 and was later
H H
released on police bail in the sum of HK$4,000.
I I
Charges 3 to 6
J J
K 4. At 1017 hours on 8 April 2013, PW1, a police officer on K
motorbike patrol along Ma Tau Kok Road, saw a private car displaying
L L
registration number RS5309 (“the Car”) jumped red light twice, first at the
M junction of Kowloon City Road and again at the junction of Pau Chung M
Street at a speed of 10 to 20 km/h in excess of the speed limit of 50 km/h.
N N
PW1 immediately switched on the siren and gave chase.
O O
5. At the junction of Ma Tau Kok Road and Pak Tai Street, the
P P
Car had to pull up behind a taxi in the offside lane as the lanes were
Q occupied by taxi stopping for the red light. PW1 then drove up to the Q
driver’s door and found that the defendant was at the wheel with no person
R R
on board. The window on the driver’s side was opened. At the same time,
S PW1 tried to intercept him but he refused to obey the command. PW1 at S
once signaled the other cars to remain stationary in order to avoid him from
T T
moving forward.
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
6. After that, PW1 alighted from his bike and attempted to
C C
remove the ignition key of the Car but he immediately wound up the
D window. PW1 withdrew his hand and opened the driver’s door. He closed D
the door at once.
E E
F F
7. Suddenly the defendant put into reverse gear, PW1 jumped
G
onto the kerb. The Car then moved backwards at high speed. As a result, G
the left rear of the Car hit the right front of a public light bus which had no
H H
passenger on board. After 1st collision, the Car moved forward hitting the
I railing on the offside kerb. As a result, the front bumper of the Car was I
dislocated.
J J
K 8. The Car did not stop but moved backwards at high speed K
again. Eventually it hit the front of a stationary medium goods vehicle in
L L
the middle lane. The impact from the collision causing that medium goods
M vehicle to move backwards hitting a taxi right behind. The taxi had no M
passenger on board.
N N
O 9. The Car then moved backwards swerving to the left and O
mounted the offside kerb hitting the railing again. Following that, the Car
P P
crashed from the offside kerb across the offside and middle lanes into the
Q nearside lane. The Car swerved abruptly to the left, swiping the offside of Q
a stationary private car and travelled into near side lane against the traffic
R R
direction at a speed of about 50 km/h. The Car finally turned right into Pau
S Chung Street. PW1 lost sight of it. S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
Charges 7 and 8
C C
10. At about 1020 hours on the same day, the Car was located by
D D
police at a parking space on Ma Hang Chung Road where it was about 200
E meters away from the location in question. At that time, the engine of the E
Car was still running but no one was found on board.
F F
G 11. Upon search, a blue nylon bag containing one 12 inches long G
nunchaku, the subject matter of Charge 7, and one 26 inches long machete,
H H
the subject matter of Charge 8, were found inside the boot of the Car.
I I
12. The incident had caused damage to 4 vehicles and the total
J J
repair cost was HK$24,800.
K K
13. On the same day, the driver involved in the 1st Collision was
L L
admitted into A&E Department of Queen Elizabeth Hospital. He was
M diagnosed to have tenderness on his neck and back. M
N N
14. On 9 April 2013, the defendant was arrested. During
O subsequent video- recorded interviews, he under caution admitted that he O
borrowed the Car from a friend named “Ah Shan” at 11pm on 7 April 2013
P P
and that he received a bag containing the weapons in question from his
Q friend “Ah Ping” for temporary storage at the boot of the Car. He admitted Q
the offences.
R R
S 15. Upon examination, the nunchaku, weighed 482 grammes, S
was found to be comprised of 2 hollow steel handles, one of approximately
T T
30 cm in length and the other of 27.5 cm in length, connected by a metal
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
chain of approximately 19.5 cm. The links on the chain were covered by
C adhesive tape. It was commercially produced and purpose-built for use as C
a flail-type weapon. It was also known as a Chinese style-fighting iron
D D
prohibited under the Prohibited Weapons Ordinance, Cap 217.
E E
Sketches
F F
G 16. At the hearing, Ms. Lam for the prosecution submitted 5 G
sketches to demonstrate the movement of the Car at the material time. She
H H
confirmed that the CCTV footage as mentioned in paragraph 31 of the
I Summary of Facts did not depict the actual movement of the Car in the I
course of the incident.
J J
K Mitigation K
L L
17. The defendant aged 22 was educated up to Form 2. His father
M aged 50 is a decoration worker and his mother aged 45 is a housewife. He M
is the eldest among 3 siblings. Prior to arrest, he worked as a causal
N N
decoration worker earning about HK$8,000 each month.
O O
18. He has 4 previous criminal records. In 2006, he was
P P
convicted of 3 counts of Robbery and 1 count of Theft for which he was
Q put on a probation order for 18 months. In 2010, he committed an offence Q
of Conspiracy to Burglary and received a term of 2 years’ imprisonment.
R R
In 2011, he was sentenced to 2 months for possession of dangerous drugs.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
Sentence
C C
19. For the offences in this case, there are no established
D D
sentencing tariffs. I have carefully considered all the cases referred to by
E the prosecution and the defence7. E
F F
20. As to Charges 1 and 2, they were committed when the
G defendant allegedly having a joy ride and at the time of the offences he had G
no similar previous record. Hence I adopt a starting point of 6 weeks for
H H
Charge 1 and 3 months for Charge 2. As to Charges 4 and 5, they were
I committed whilst on police bail. I cannot lose sight of the fact that the I
victims involved in the incident were left without third party insurance
J J
protection. I adopt a starting point of 9 weeks for Charge 4 and 6 months
K for Charge 5. K
L L
21. For Charge 3 dangerous driving, Mr Ng, counsel for the
M defendant, with his customary industrious effort, referred me to HKSAR v M
Lam Shun Choi CACC 402/ 2012. In Lam’s case, the applicant, in an
N N
attempt to avoid apprehension, drove through 3 sets of traffic lights with
O excessive speed and then drove onto the pavement where a pedestrian was O
hit. The starting point of 2 years and 3 months was upheld.
P P
Q Q
R R
7
S SJ v Ko Wai Kit [2001] 3 HKLRD 751; HKSAR v Tang Chen Ming [2003] 1 HKC 515; SJ v Poon Wing S
Kay [2007] 1 HKLRD 661; SJ v Lam Siu Tong [2009] 5 HKLRD 601; SJ v Wong Wai Hung [2011] 2
HKC 224; HKSAR v Lee Yau Wing CACC 282/ 2012; HKSAR v Lam Shun Choi CACC 402/ 2012;
T HKSAR v Lee Chun Kit HCMA 1007/ 2003; HKSAR v 盧旻駿 HCMA 718/ 2012; HKSAR v Ip Chi Wang T
HCMA 377/ 2003
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
22. The gravamen of our present case lies upon the facts that:-
C C
(a) the defendant, without a valid driving licence, was an
D D
unqualified, incompetent and inexperienced driver;
E (b) his driving was a “prolonged, persistent and deliberate E
course of very bad driving”. He irresponsibly drove
F F
through 2 sets of traffic lights in excessive speed. In
G order to avoid lawful apprehension, he put the Car in G
“reverse” at high speed against traffic direction,
H H
causing 3 direct and 1 indirect collisions involving 4
I vehicles, in a crowded area. It was deliberate and, in I
my view, a ruthless and selfish disregard to the safety
J J
of PW1, other road-users and pedestrians, posing an
K imminent danger on the road; K
(c) though minor injuries were caused to the public light
L L
bus driver, it was only fortuitous that there was no
M passenger on board of the bus and taxi involved in the M
collisions. By looking at the photos depicting the
N N
condition of the Car after the incident, it is not difficult
O to imagine that the force arising from the collisions and O
impact was extremely great;
P P
(d) the offence was committed whilst on police bail.
Q Q
23. Having considered the aggravating features of this case, I
R R
adopt a starting point of 2 years and 3 months for Charge 3.
S S
24. Of Charge 6, the defendant willfully and repeatedly
T T
disobeyed and ignored the commands of PW1. He demonstrated a
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
complete disrespect to the law and law enforcement agent. A sentence of
C deterrent effect should be imposed so as to send a stark message to the C
public that every police officer in the execution of his/her duty must be
D D
respected and protected. The seriousness of the offence, in my view, is not
E dependent upon the number of police officer involved but upon the manner E
of which an offender obstructs the execution of police duty. The defendant
F F
deliberately wound up the window, closed the driver’s door and put into
G reverse gear regardless of PW1’s safety. The obstruction was not one-off, G
it was persistent. I adopt a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment.
H H
I 25. Of Charges 7 and 8, I have examined the weapons in question. I
The nunchaku is steel-made. When used in an attack, the force which will
J J
be generated by an act of swinging can no doubt cause serious harm to
K others. As to the machete, it is an offensive weapon per se. It is a lethal K
weapon that can cause serious injuries or even death when it is being used
L L
in a fight or confrontation. Furthermore, given the alleged background as
M to how the defendant came into possession of these weapons and his triad M
affiliation as stated in his Antecedent Statement, the risk of going into
N N
wrong hands is enormous and real. I have considered all the cases referred
O to by Mr Ng8. However, the size and conditions of each weapon involved O
in different cases differs and the circumstances under which the offenders
P P
came into possession of them varies. A direct comparison with cases of
Q different factual matrix is of little assistance in sentencing. Having Q
considered all the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 9 months for
R R
Charge 7 and 15 months for Charge 8.
S S
T T
8
HKSAR v Lee Chun Kit, supra; HKSAR v 盧旻駿, supra; HKSAR v Ip Chi Wang,supra
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
Disqualification
C C
26. Disqualification order is mandatory for Charges 2, 3 and 5
D D
upon conviction. Such order is “forward-looking and preventive”, instead
E of “backward-looking and punitive”. In considering the appropriate length E
of disqualification, the length of imprisonment term should be taken into
F F
account otherwise it may serve no actual and practical purpose. Having
G considered all the circumstances, I impose a disqualification order for a G
period of 12 months for Charge 2, 4 years for Charge 3 and 18 months for
H H
Charge 5. Since the defendant holds no valid driving licence, a driving test
I order is unnecessary. I
J J
27. To reflect his guilty plea, the respective sentences are as
K follows: Charge 1 - 4 weeks’ imprisonment; Charge 2 - 2 months’ K
imprisonment, together with a disqualification order from holding or
L L
obtaining a driving licence for all classes of vehicles for a period of 12
M months; Charge 3 - 18 months’ imprisonment, together with a M
disqualification order from holding or obtaining a driving licence for all
N N
classes of vehicles for a period of 4 years; Charge 4 - 6 weeks’
O imprisonment; Charge 5 - 4 months’ imprisonment, together with a O
disqualification order from holding or obtaining a driving licence for all
P P
classes of vehicles for a period of 18 months; Charge 6 - 8 months’
Q imprisonment; Charge 7 - 6 months’ imprisonment; Charge 8 - 10 months’ Q
imprisonment.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
Totality
C C
28. Regarding the totality principle, I order the sentences of
D D
Charges 1 to 5 be run concurrently, ie a total sentence of 18 months’
E imprisonment. The obstructing and weapons charges were not part and E
parcel of the driving offences. They were separate matters. Having
F F
considered totality, I order 4 months of Charge 6, 3 months of Charge 7
G and 5 months of Charge 8 be run consecutive to the overall sentence of G
Charges 1 to 5. In the result, the defendant is sentenced to 30 months’
H H
imprisonment, reflecting a notional overall starting point of 3 years and 9
I months, together with a disqualification order from holding or obtaining a I
driving licence for all classes of vehicles for a period of 4 years.
J J
K K
L L
M
( W T So ) M
Deputy District Judge
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V