A A
B B
DCCC 92/2025
C [2026] HKDC 75 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 92 OF 2025
F F
G ----------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I CHAN SAI MING I
-----------------------------------
J J
K Before: His Honour Judge Tam K
Date: 9 January 2026
L L
Present: Ms Kong Kin Wah, Stephanie, Public Prosecutor, for
M HKSAR M
Mr Kan Wing Fai, Terry, instructed by M C A Lai Solicitors
N N
LLP, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the
O defendant O
Offence: Causing death by dangerous driving（危險駕駛引致他人
P P
死亡）
Q Q
R ----------------------------------------- R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
S S
-----------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. Mr Chan pleaded guilty before me to one charge of Causing
C death by dangerous driving, contrary to section 36(1) of the Road Traffic C
Ordinance, Cap 274. Particulars are that he, on 20 May 2024, at Sai Yee
D D
Street near Shantung Street, Mongkok, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, caused
E the death of Kwong Lai Chun, by driving a motor vehicle, namely a E
medium goods vehicle bearing registration mark LFG1, on a road
F F
dangerously.
G G
Facts admitted by Mr Chan
H H
I 2. On 20 May 2024, at about 4:47 pm, Mr Chan was driving a I
medium goods vehicle bearing registration mark LFG1 (“the Lorry”) along
J J
Sai Yee Street (North bound) approaching the junction with Shan Tung
K Street. After stopping the Lorry in light of traffic ahead, Mr Chan resumed K
movement whereupon Madam Kwong aged 82 (“the Deceased”) was
L L
knocked down and rolled over by the Lorry. The Lorry did not stop for 20
M metres after the point of impact. M
N N
3. The Deceased was conveyed to hospital for medical treatment
O but was certified dead at 6:05 pm on same day. O
P P
4. CCTV footage from various nearby sources showed:-
Q Q
(a) The Deceased had been standing at the side of Sai Yee
R R
Street facing the carriageway sometime earlier before
S the Lorry approached the stopping position; S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
(b) The Deceased did not cross the road there and then and
C walked forward along the traffic direction by the side C
of Sai Yee Street;
D D
E (c) The Deceased then crossed the road in front of the E
Lorry from the left side as the Lorry stopped behind the
F F
stationary private car YS1148; and
G G
(d) Shortly after, when the Lorry moved forward following
H H
YS1148, the Deceased was hit and rolled beneath it.
I I
5. Traffic accident reconstruction showed:
J J
K (a) When the Deceased was at the left side of the Lorry K
between 5 seconds and 3 seconds before YS1148
L L
started moving forward, the Deceased could be seen at
M the nearside wide-angled mirror of the Lorry; and M
N N
(b) Just at the moment when the Lorry was about to resume
O movement between 1 second before and 1 second after O
YS1148 started moving forward, the Deceased could be
P P
seen via the nearside fish-eye mirror of the Lorry.
Q Q
6. Mr Chan was arrested and under caution, he stated:
R R
S (a) He stopped the Lorry in light of the traffic ahead; S
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
(b) The space between the Lorry and the preceding vehicle
C was about half a vehicle space; C
D D
(c) When the Lorry was stopped, he had chatted with a
E passenger on the Lorry; E
F F
(d) When the traffic ahead resumed, he had checked the
G mirrors at both sides including the fisheye mirror and G
the wide-angle mirror before moving the Lorry, but
H H
could not notice anything;
I I
(e) The Deceased was wearing dark-colour clothing and
J J
therefore he might not have noticed her; and
K K
(f) He had heard the scream of a female and stopped the
L L
Lorry after about 20 metres, having thought whether he
M hit some object in the first place and therefore took M
some time before he stopped the Lorry.
N N
O 7. At the material time, Mr Chan caused the death of the O
Deceased, by driving the Lorry on a road dangerously, that is by:
P P
Q (a) Failing to keep a proper lookout of the road conditions Q
when approaching a section of the road with slow
R R
vehicular traffic and slow pedestrian activities;
S S
(b) Failing to review all mirrors of the Lorry and look
T T
around to make sure no pedestrian was crossing or
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
standing by the Lorry before moving off, taking into
C account the height of the Lorry and his blind spots; and C
D D
(c) Failing to stop the Lorry immediately upon impact
E and/or after hearing the scream of the Deceased. E
F F
Criminal and Road Traffic conviction records
G G
8. Mr Chan has no such previous records.
H H
I Antecedents I
J J
9. Mr Chan is aged 55 (53 at the time of the offence), educated
K to junior secondary level, was a goods vehicle driver. Mr Chan is married K
and is living in public housing in Fanling.
L L
M Mitigation M
N N
10. Mr Terry Kan of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal
O Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Chan. The following is a summary of the O
mitigation submissions.
P P
Q 11. Mr Chan is married. His wife is aged 50. Their two sons are Q
aged 15 and 11.
R R
S 12. Mr Chan received up to F3 education. He worked as a S
delivery assistant (ie driver) at a dispensary earning $16,500 per month
T T
prior to the incident. He is now a warehouse assistant at the same company.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
C 13. The tragic event could be seen from the car camera footage C
provided by a nearby car UN 906. There were two pieces of footage, each
D D
one minute in length.
E E
14. In the first footage, from counter 00:40 onward, the Lorry
F F
slowly stopped behind the stationary cars waiting for the traffic lights to
G change. The Deceased jaywalked trying to cross the road in the middle of G
the street.
H H
I 15. It was submitted that Mr Chan was sober at the time of the I
offence; he was moving at a very slow speed and he did not violate any
J J
traffic signals.
K K
16. Mr Chan has a clear criminal record. The main mitigating
L L
factor is his plea of guilty.
M M
17. Mr Chan is remorseful. He has many sleepless nights
N N
whenever he thinks back on the tragic incident. He needs to see a
O psychiatrist for his condition. Antidepressant and sleeping pills were O
prescribed to him to help him get some sleep.
P P
Q 18. The maximum penalty for the offence of Dangerous driving Q
causing death is a fine of $50,000 and imprisonment for 10 years: section
R R
36(1)(a) of RTO.
S S
19. For offence under section 36(1) of RTO, “a deterrent sentence
T T
is called for because of the grave consequences flowing from this offence.
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
At the same time, the Court recognizes that culpability of the defendant is
C the dominant factor in the sentencing exercise.” (see Secretary for Justice C
v Liu Kwok Chun [2011] 1 HKC 70 at para 35).
D D
E 20. Aggravating and mitigating factors, factors which was E
relevant to both dangerous driving and dangerous driving causing death,
F F
set out in R v Boswell [1984] RTR 315 were revised in R v Cooksley [2003]
G RTR 32 and have been adopted in Hong Kong, for example, see Liu Kwok G
Chun (supra).
H H
I 21. In Cooksley (supra), four categories of culpability were I
adopted: where there are no aggravating circumstances; intermediate
J J
culpability; higher culpability; and most serious culpability. This has been
K adopted in Hong Kong, for example, see Liu Kwok Chun (supra). K
L L
22. Aggravating and mitigating factors referred to in Cooksley
M (supra) at para 15 thereof are recited in Liu Kwok Chun (supra) at paras M
38-39.
N N
O 23. Mr Kan submitted that there were no aggravating factors in O
the present case; that among the mitigating factors referred to in Liu Kwok
P P
Chun (supra), the following may be relevant:
Q Q
(a) A good driving record (only one fixed penalty record in
R R
at least the past 3 years);
S S
(b) The absence of previous convictions;
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
(c) A timely plea of guilty; and
C C
(d) Genuine shock or remorse.
D D
E 24. Although the Cooksley (supra) range of sentence has not been E
adopted as the tariff in Hong Kong, it is still useful to crosscheck the
F F
intended sentence with Cooksley’s four categories of culpability. Since the
G maximum sentence of s 36(1) of RTO has been raised to 10 years’ G
imprisonment in Hong Kong, and when Cooksley was determined, the
H H
maximum sentence was also 10 years’ imprisonment in England.
I I
25. Para 40 of Liu Kwok Chun (supra) sets out the Cooksley’s
J J
range of sentence in respect of the four categories of culpability based on
K the then maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment in England and K
which is the maximum sentence in Hong Kong:
L L
M (a) Where there were no aggravating circumstances: 12-18 M
months;
N N
O (b) Intermediate culpability: momentary dangerous error O
of judgement or a short period of bad driving
P P
aggravated by a habitually unacceptable standard of
Q driving, by the death of more than one victim or serious Q
injury to other victims or by the offender’s
R R
irresponsible behaviour at the time of the offence: 2-3
S years; S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
(c) Higher culpability where the standard of the offender’s
C driving is more highly dangerous, eg the presence of C
one or more of factors of (1) to (9) [of para 38 of Liu
D D
Kwok Chun]: 4-5 years; and
E E
(d) Most serious culpability: 6 years onwards.
F F
G 26. In Secretary for Justice v Lau Sin Ting [2010] 5 HKLRD 318, G
the Court of Appeal stated at para 36 that each case is different and may
H H
vary greatly in its circumstances and too formulaic an approach to sentence
I may result in injustice. I
J J
27. In the case of HKSAR v Wong Wing Jerk (transliteration)
K [2025] HKDC 1349, HHJ WK Kwok found the defendant had failed to see K
the victim while his attention was distracted by humming a song (see paras
L L
39 & 40). Given all the circumstances of the case, the learned judge took
M a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment 1. It was submitted that the M
situation in the present case is similar to that there.
N N
O 28. In the present case, Mr Chan’s culpability lay in a momentary O
error of judgement, namely by allowing himself to move the Lorry without
P P
seeing the Deceased in the mirrors in split second. His culpability should
Q be in the bottom bracket of the Cooksley (supra) range of sentence where Q
there were no aggravating circumstances.
R R
S 29. Mr Kan urged the court to adopt a starting point of 12 months’ S
imprisonment.
T T
1
Mr Kan conceded this case is Causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving only.
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
C 30. Mr Chan is entitled to one-third discount for his timely plea. C
Mr Kan asked the court to give Mr Chan a further discount of 2 months
D D
after the 1/3 for the psychological pain that the latter is suffering day and
E night. E
F F
31. Moreover, Mr Kan asked the court to consider community
G service order as a real and effective alternative to prison in this case. Mr G
Kan cited two District Court sentencing cases in support: HKSAR v Ho
H H
Chung Yin [2018] HKDC 1096, HKSAR v Yiu Sun Sun (transliteration)
I [2025] HKDC 1481. I
J J
32. Under section 36(2) & (2A) of the RTO, the court shall order
K a person convicted for the first time of the present offence to K
disqualification for at least 5 years unless there are special reasons not to
L L
do so. Mr Kan has no submissions to make. Nor has Mr Kan any
M submissions to make on the mandatory order to attend a driving M
improvement course.
N N
O 33. Upon enquiry by the court, Mr Kan submitted that the O
aggravating factor in para 38(6) of Liu Kwok Chun – driving while the
P P
driver’s attention is avoidably distracted, eg by reading or by use of a
Q mobile phone (especially if hand-held) – should not apply merely because Q
Mr Chan was chatting with a passenger moments before he resumed
R R
movement of the Lorry, for the reason that this was just a “neutral thing”.
S S
34. Upon enquiry by the court, Mr Kan submitted that the
T T
aggravating factor in para 38(14) of Liu Kwok Chun – (irresponsible)
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
behavior at the time of the offence, such as failing to stop… – should not
C apply because Mr Chan did not realize he had knocked down a person until C
later.
D D
E Sentence E
F F
35. It is unclear why Mr Kan relied on two sentencing cases on a
G less serious offence, namely Causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous G
driving, to ask for a community service order for Mr Chan. In a case as
H H
serious as the present one, community service order as a sentencing option
I is out of the question. I
J J
36. I have seen the 3 sets of video footage more than once: one
K from UN906, one from a nearby restaurant, and the last one from the Lorry K
itself (in-cabin-view). It was apparent that the Deceased was a short lady
L L
who, may be due to old age, had a hunchback. This made her even shorter
M in height. There is no doubt that she was jaywalking dangerously on a busy M
road. At the critical time, she was crossing from the left second lane to the
N N
left third lane into the Lorry’s path, and very close to the left front end of
O the Lorry. In part, she was to blame. O
P P
37. However, that does not to a large extent alleviate Mr Chan’s
Q responsibility in the matter. He, for his part, was distracted in his driving Q
(including temporarily stopping) of a large Lorry by his chatting with a
R R
passenger. The scientific evidence suggests that Mr Chan was in a position
S to see the Deceased with the help of external mirrors for a period of 4 S
seconds (though not continuously) before resuming movement. However,
T T
it must be the case that he simply missed the Deceased, either through
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
inattention or failure to exercise proper or sufficient care. Mr Chan simply
C failed to keep a proper lookout of the ever-changing road conditions around C
him. The distraction caused by his chatting with a passenger must have
D D
played a part. The in-cabin footage shows he was looking to the right while
E chatting when the Deceased was walking near the Lorry from the left. E
F F
38. For this reason, I am of the view that the aggravating factor in
G para 38(6) of Liu Kwok Chun does apply. However, I agree with Mr Kan G
that there are degrees of distraction. Although Mr Chan’s mind and ears
H H
were distracted, his eyes were not. So it cannot be comparable to the
I examples cited in para 38(6) such as reading or using a mobile phone (eg I
by texting). I am therefore of the view that although para 38(6) applies,
J J
Mr Chan’s manner of driving does not belong to the Higher culpability
K category under para 40 of Liu Kwok Chun. I take into account the chatting K
stopped once Mr Chan resumed movement. I also take into account that,
L L
from the in-cabin footage, he did seem to look around before moving off.
M M
39. All things considered, I am of the view that Mr Chan’s manner
N N
of driving can only be regarded as belonging to Intermediate culpability
O category. O
P P
40. I am satisfied that the aggravating factor in para 38(14) of Liu
Q Kwok Chun does not apply because it was only at a later stage that Mr Chan Q
realized he had knocked down someone, despite the intermittent sounds of
R R
screaming that can be heard from the in-cabin footage.
S S
41. I take into account that the Deceased was partly to blame.
T T
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
42. These factors considered, I adopt a starting point of 2 years’
C imprisonment. C
D D
43. Mr Chan pleaded guilty in good time earning for himself the
E customary 1/3 sentencing discount. For his good driving record, his lack E
of a criminal record, and his genuine shock or remorse, I will grant him a
F F
further sentencing discount of 3 months after the 1/3. There are no other
G mitigating factors of weight to justify another sentence reduction. G
H H
44. The present conviction calls for a mandatory disqualification
I of at least 5 years in duration and a mandatory order to attend a driving I
improvement course, unless special reasons exist. There are none that I
J J
can see.
K K
(Mr Chan, please stand)
L L
M 45. The sentence is 13 months’ imprisonment. M
N N
46. I order that Mr Chan be disqualified from holding or obtaining
O a driving licence for all classes of vehicle for a period of 5 years. I further O
order Mr Chan to attend and complete a driving improvement course at his
P P
own cost within the last 3 months of the disqualification period.
Q Q
47. Mr Chan is not to hold or obtain a driving licence again until
R R
he has both (a) served his disqualification period and (b) attended and
S completed at his own cost the driving improvement course. S
T T
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
48. I hereby warn Mr Chan that failure to attend and complete the
C driving improvement course at the time specified without reasonable C
excuse is itself an offence and can attract an imprisonment sentence.
D D
E E
F F
( Isaac Tam )
District Judge
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 92/2025
C [2026] HKDC 75 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 92 OF 2025
F F
G ----------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I CHAN SAI MING I
-----------------------------------
J J
K Before: His Honour Judge Tam K
Date: 9 January 2026
L L
Present: Ms Kong Kin Wah, Stephanie, Public Prosecutor, for
M HKSAR M
Mr Kan Wing Fai, Terry, instructed by M C A Lai Solicitors
N N
LLP, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the
O defendant O
Offence: Causing death by dangerous driving（危險駕駛引致他人
P P
死亡）
Q Q
R ----------------------------------------- R
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
S S
-----------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. Mr Chan pleaded guilty before me to one charge of Causing
C death by dangerous driving, contrary to section 36(1) of the Road Traffic C
Ordinance, Cap 274. Particulars are that he, on 20 May 2024, at Sai Yee
D D
Street near Shantung Street, Mongkok, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, caused
E the death of Kwong Lai Chun, by driving a motor vehicle, namely a E
medium goods vehicle bearing registration mark LFG1, on a road
F F
dangerously.
G G
Facts admitted by Mr Chan
H H
I 2. On 20 May 2024, at about 4:47 pm, Mr Chan was driving a I
medium goods vehicle bearing registration mark LFG1 (“the Lorry”) along
J J
Sai Yee Street (North bound) approaching the junction with Shan Tung
K Street. After stopping the Lorry in light of traffic ahead, Mr Chan resumed K
movement whereupon Madam Kwong aged 82 (“the Deceased”) was
L L
knocked down and rolled over by the Lorry. The Lorry did not stop for 20
M metres after the point of impact. M
N N
3. The Deceased was conveyed to hospital for medical treatment
O but was certified dead at 6:05 pm on same day. O
P P
4. CCTV footage from various nearby sources showed:-
Q Q
(a) The Deceased had been standing at the side of Sai Yee
R R
Street facing the carriageway sometime earlier before
S the Lorry approached the stopping position; S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
(b) The Deceased did not cross the road there and then and
C walked forward along the traffic direction by the side C
of Sai Yee Street;
D D
E (c) The Deceased then crossed the road in front of the E
Lorry from the left side as the Lorry stopped behind the
F F
stationary private car YS1148; and
G G
(d) Shortly after, when the Lorry moved forward following
H H
YS1148, the Deceased was hit and rolled beneath it.
I I
5. Traffic accident reconstruction showed:
J J
K (a) When the Deceased was at the left side of the Lorry K
between 5 seconds and 3 seconds before YS1148
L L
started moving forward, the Deceased could be seen at
M the nearside wide-angled mirror of the Lorry; and M
N N
(b) Just at the moment when the Lorry was about to resume
O movement between 1 second before and 1 second after O
YS1148 started moving forward, the Deceased could be
P P
seen via the nearside fish-eye mirror of the Lorry.
Q Q
6. Mr Chan was arrested and under caution, he stated:
R R
S (a) He stopped the Lorry in light of the traffic ahead; S
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
(b) The space between the Lorry and the preceding vehicle
C was about half a vehicle space; C
D D
(c) When the Lorry was stopped, he had chatted with a
E passenger on the Lorry; E
F F
(d) When the traffic ahead resumed, he had checked the
G mirrors at both sides including the fisheye mirror and G
the wide-angle mirror before moving the Lorry, but
H H
could not notice anything;
I I
(e) The Deceased was wearing dark-colour clothing and
J J
therefore he might not have noticed her; and
K K
(f) He had heard the scream of a female and stopped the
L L
Lorry after about 20 metres, having thought whether he
M hit some object in the first place and therefore took M
some time before he stopped the Lorry.
N N
O 7. At the material time, Mr Chan caused the death of the O
Deceased, by driving the Lorry on a road dangerously, that is by:
P P
Q (a) Failing to keep a proper lookout of the road conditions Q
when approaching a section of the road with slow
R R
vehicular traffic and slow pedestrian activities;
S S
(b) Failing to review all mirrors of the Lorry and look
T T
around to make sure no pedestrian was crossing or
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
standing by the Lorry before moving off, taking into
C account the height of the Lorry and his blind spots; and C
D D
(c) Failing to stop the Lorry immediately upon impact
E and/or after hearing the scream of the Deceased. E
F F
Criminal and Road Traffic conviction records
G G
8. Mr Chan has no such previous records.
H H
I Antecedents I
J J
9. Mr Chan is aged 55 (53 at the time of the offence), educated
K to junior secondary level, was a goods vehicle driver. Mr Chan is married K
and is living in public housing in Fanling.
L L
M Mitigation M
N N
10. Mr Terry Kan of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal
O Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Chan. The following is a summary of the O
mitigation submissions.
P P
Q 11. Mr Chan is married. His wife is aged 50. Their two sons are Q
aged 15 and 11.
R R
S 12. Mr Chan received up to F3 education. He worked as a S
delivery assistant (ie driver) at a dispensary earning $16,500 per month
T T
prior to the incident. He is now a warehouse assistant at the same company.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
C 13. The tragic event could be seen from the car camera footage C
provided by a nearby car UN 906. There were two pieces of footage, each
D D
one minute in length.
E E
14. In the first footage, from counter 00:40 onward, the Lorry
F F
slowly stopped behind the stationary cars waiting for the traffic lights to
G change. The Deceased jaywalked trying to cross the road in the middle of G
the street.
H H
I 15. It was submitted that Mr Chan was sober at the time of the I
offence; he was moving at a very slow speed and he did not violate any
J J
traffic signals.
K K
16. Mr Chan has a clear criminal record. The main mitigating
L L
factor is his plea of guilty.
M M
17. Mr Chan is remorseful. He has many sleepless nights
N N
whenever he thinks back on the tragic incident. He needs to see a
O psychiatrist for his condition. Antidepressant and sleeping pills were O
prescribed to him to help him get some sleep.
P P
Q 18. The maximum penalty for the offence of Dangerous driving Q
causing death is a fine of $50,000 and imprisonment for 10 years: section
R R
36(1)(a) of RTO.
S S
19. For offence under section 36(1) of RTO, “a deterrent sentence
T T
is called for because of the grave consequences flowing from this offence.
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
At the same time, the Court recognizes that culpability of the defendant is
C the dominant factor in the sentencing exercise.” (see Secretary for Justice C
v Liu Kwok Chun [2011] 1 HKC 70 at para 35).
D D
E 20. Aggravating and mitigating factors, factors which was E
relevant to both dangerous driving and dangerous driving causing death,
F F
set out in R v Boswell [1984] RTR 315 were revised in R v Cooksley [2003]
G RTR 32 and have been adopted in Hong Kong, for example, see Liu Kwok G
Chun (supra).
H H
I 21. In Cooksley (supra), four categories of culpability were I
adopted: where there are no aggravating circumstances; intermediate
J J
culpability; higher culpability; and most serious culpability. This has been
K adopted in Hong Kong, for example, see Liu Kwok Chun (supra). K
L L
22. Aggravating and mitigating factors referred to in Cooksley
M (supra) at para 15 thereof are recited in Liu Kwok Chun (supra) at paras M
38-39.
N N
O 23. Mr Kan submitted that there were no aggravating factors in O
the present case; that among the mitigating factors referred to in Liu Kwok
P P
Chun (supra), the following may be relevant:
Q Q
(a) A good driving record (only one fixed penalty record in
R R
at least the past 3 years);
S S
(b) The absence of previous convictions;
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
(c) A timely plea of guilty; and
C C
(d) Genuine shock or remorse.
D D
E 24. Although the Cooksley (supra) range of sentence has not been E
adopted as the tariff in Hong Kong, it is still useful to crosscheck the
F F
intended sentence with Cooksley’s four categories of culpability. Since the
G maximum sentence of s 36(1) of RTO has been raised to 10 years’ G
imprisonment in Hong Kong, and when Cooksley was determined, the
H H
maximum sentence was also 10 years’ imprisonment in England.
I I
25. Para 40 of Liu Kwok Chun (supra) sets out the Cooksley’s
J J
range of sentence in respect of the four categories of culpability based on
K the then maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment in England and K
which is the maximum sentence in Hong Kong:
L L
M (a) Where there were no aggravating circumstances: 12-18 M
months;
N N
O (b) Intermediate culpability: momentary dangerous error O
of judgement or a short period of bad driving
P P
aggravated by a habitually unacceptable standard of
Q driving, by the death of more than one victim or serious Q
injury to other victims or by the offender’s
R R
irresponsible behaviour at the time of the offence: 2-3
S years; S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
(c) Higher culpability where the standard of the offender’s
C driving is more highly dangerous, eg the presence of C
one or more of factors of (1) to (9) [of para 38 of Liu
D D
Kwok Chun]: 4-5 years; and
E E
(d) Most serious culpability: 6 years onwards.
F F
G 26. In Secretary for Justice v Lau Sin Ting [2010] 5 HKLRD 318, G
the Court of Appeal stated at para 36 that each case is different and may
H H
vary greatly in its circumstances and too formulaic an approach to sentence
I may result in injustice. I
J J
27. In the case of HKSAR v Wong Wing Jerk (transliteration)
K [2025] HKDC 1349, HHJ WK Kwok found the defendant had failed to see K
the victim while his attention was distracted by humming a song (see paras
L L
39 & 40). Given all the circumstances of the case, the learned judge took
M a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment 1. It was submitted that the M
situation in the present case is similar to that there.
N N
O 28. In the present case, Mr Chan’s culpability lay in a momentary O
error of judgement, namely by allowing himself to move the Lorry without
P P
seeing the Deceased in the mirrors in split second. His culpability should
Q be in the bottom bracket of the Cooksley (supra) range of sentence where Q
there were no aggravating circumstances.
R R
S 29. Mr Kan urged the court to adopt a starting point of 12 months’ S
imprisonment.
T T
1
Mr Kan conceded this case is Causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving only.
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
C 30. Mr Chan is entitled to one-third discount for his timely plea. C
Mr Kan asked the court to give Mr Chan a further discount of 2 months
D D
after the 1/3 for the psychological pain that the latter is suffering day and
E night. E
F F
31. Moreover, Mr Kan asked the court to consider community
G service order as a real and effective alternative to prison in this case. Mr G
Kan cited two District Court sentencing cases in support: HKSAR v Ho
H H
Chung Yin [2018] HKDC 1096, HKSAR v Yiu Sun Sun (transliteration)
I [2025] HKDC 1481. I
J J
32. Under section 36(2) & (2A) of the RTO, the court shall order
K a person convicted for the first time of the present offence to K
disqualification for at least 5 years unless there are special reasons not to
L L
do so. Mr Kan has no submissions to make. Nor has Mr Kan any
M submissions to make on the mandatory order to attend a driving M
improvement course.
N N
O 33. Upon enquiry by the court, Mr Kan submitted that the O
aggravating factor in para 38(6) of Liu Kwok Chun – driving while the
P P
driver’s attention is avoidably distracted, eg by reading or by use of a
Q mobile phone (especially if hand-held) – should not apply merely because Q
Mr Chan was chatting with a passenger moments before he resumed
R R
movement of the Lorry, for the reason that this was just a “neutral thing”.
S S
34. Upon enquiry by the court, Mr Kan submitted that the
T T
aggravating factor in para 38(14) of Liu Kwok Chun – (irresponsible)
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
behavior at the time of the offence, such as failing to stop… – should not
C apply because Mr Chan did not realize he had knocked down a person until C
later.
D D
E Sentence E
F F
35. It is unclear why Mr Kan relied on two sentencing cases on a
G less serious offence, namely Causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous G
driving, to ask for a community service order for Mr Chan. In a case as
H H
serious as the present one, community service order as a sentencing option
I is out of the question. I
J J
36. I have seen the 3 sets of video footage more than once: one
K from UN906, one from a nearby restaurant, and the last one from the Lorry K
itself (in-cabin-view). It was apparent that the Deceased was a short lady
L L
who, may be due to old age, had a hunchback. This made her even shorter
M in height. There is no doubt that she was jaywalking dangerously on a busy M
road. At the critical time, she was crossing from the left second lane to the
N N
left third lane into the Lorry’s path, and very close to the left front end of
O the Lorry. In part, she was to blame. O
P P
37. However, that does not to a large extent alleviate Mr Chan’s
Q responsibility in the matter. He, for his part, was distracted in his driving Q
(including temporarily stopping) of a large Lorry by his chatting with a
R R
passenger. The scientific evidence suggests that Mr Chan was in a position
S to see the Deceased with the help of external mirrors for a period of 4 S
seconds (though not continuously) before resuming movement. However,
T T
it must be the case that he simply missed the Deceased, either through
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
inattention or failure to exercise proper or sufficient care. Mr Chan simply
C failed to keep a proper lookout of the ever-changing road conditions around C
him. The distraction caused by his chatting with a passenger must have
D D
played a part. The in-cabin footage shows he was looking to the right while
E chatting when the Deceased was walking near the Lorry from the left. E
F F
38. For this reason, I am of the view that the aggravating factor in
G para 38(6) of Liu Kwok Chun does apply. However, I agree with Mr Kan G
that there are degrees of distraction. Although Mr Chan’s mind and ears
H H
were distracted, his eyes were not. So it cannot be comparable to the
I examples cited in para 38(6) such as reading or using a mobile phone (eg I
by texting). I am therefore of the view that although para 38(6) applies,
J J
Mr Chan’s manner of driving does not belong to the Higher culpability
K category under para 40 of Liu Kwok Chun. I take into account the chatting K
stopped once Mr Chan resumed movement. I also take into account that,
L L
from the in-cabin footage, he did seem to look around before moving off.
M M
39. All things considered, I am of the view that Mr Chan’s manner
N N
of driving can only be regarded as belonging to Intermediate culpability
O category. O
P P
40. I am satisfied that the aggravating factor in para 38(14) of Liu
Q Kwok Chun does not apply because it was only at a later stage that Mr Chan Q
realized he had knocked down someone, despite the intermittent sounds of
R R
screaming that can be heard from the in-cabin footage.
S S
41. I take into account that the Deceased was partly to blame.
T T
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
42. These factors considered, I adopt a starting point of 2 years’
C imprisonment. C
D D
43. Mr Chan pleaded guilty in good time earning for himself the
E customary 1/3 sentencing discount. For his good driving record, his lack E
of a criminal record, and his genuine shock or remorse, I will grant him a
F F
further sentencing discount of 3 months after the 1/3. There are no other
G mitigating factors of weight to justify another sentence reduction. G
H H
44. The present conviction calls for a mandatory disqualification
I of at least 5 years in duration and a mandatory order to attend a driving I
improvement course, unless special reasons exist. There are none that I
J J
can see.
K K
(Mr Chan, please stand)
L L
M 45. The sentence is 13 months’ imprisonment. M
N N
46. I order that Mr Chan be disqualified from holding or obtaining
O a driving licence for all classes of vehicle for a period of 5 years. I further O
order Mr Chan to attend and complete a driving improvement course at his
P P
own cost within the last 3 months of the disqualification period.
Q Q
47. Mr Chan is not to hold or obtain a driving licence again until
R R
he has both (a) served his disqualification period and (b) attended and
S completed at his own cost the driving improvement course. S
T T
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
48. I hereby warn Mr Chan that failure to attend and complete the
C driving improvement course at the time specified without reasonable C
excuse is itself an offence and can attract an imprisonment sentence.
D D
E E
F F
( Isaac Tam )
District Judge
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V