由此
A A
B DCCC 105/2021 B
[2021] HKDC 804
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO. 105 OF 2021 E
F F
____________
G G
HKSAR
H v H
LOI Kan-chi
I I
____________
J J
K Before : H.H. Judge G. Lam K
Date : 2 July 20211
L Present : Mr. Fu Chong Sang, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR. L
Mr. Raymond Cheung of M/s Y.L. Yeung & Co. for
M
the defendant. M
Offences : (1) Dangerous driving（危險駕駛）
(2) to (4) Resisting a police officer in the execution of
N N
his duty（抗拒執行職責的警務人員）
(5) Possession of a dangerous drug（管有危險藥物）
O O
(6) Driving a motor vehicle with any concentration of
a specified illicit drug（在體內含有任何濃度的
P P
指明毒品時駕駛汽車）
Q Q
R REASONS FOR SENTENCE R
S S
T T
1
The sentencing date was fixed for 28 June 2021; however, all court proceedings on that day were
adjourned owing to a Black Rainstorm Warning.
U U
V V
由此
- 2 -
A A
The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Dangerous
B B
driving" (Charge 1); 3 charges of "Resisting a police officer in the execution
C C
2
of his duty " (Charges 2 to 4); a charge of "Possession of a dangerous drug"
D D
(Charge 5); and a charge of "Driving a motor vehicle with any concentration
E E
of a specified illicit drug" (Charge 6).
F F
G Summary of Facts G
H H
2. This case arose from an inspection at a police roadblock set up
I I
near Lamppost No.AB0723 at West Kowloon Highway ("the Roadblock").
J J
K K
Charge 1
L L
3. Around midnight on 24 October 2020, PC 9216 (PW1)
M M
approached a private car WT619 ("the Car") stopped at the Roadblock. He
N N
asked the driver (later identified as the defendant) to show his driving
O O
licence and identity card. The defendant ignored PW1 and drove off. Two
P police vehicles (PV1 and PV2) respectively driven by PC 11236 (PW2) and P
Q SGT 53819 (PW3) immediately gave chase. IP H.W. Cheung (PW4) and Q
R SIP K.Z. Leung (PW5) were also on board of PVs 1 and 2 respectively. R
S S
T T
2
Contrary to section 63 of the Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232).
U U
V V
由此
- 3 -
A A
4. The sirens and flashing lights of both PVs 1 and 2 were
B B
switched on. Police officers on board used loudhailers to order the Car to
C C
stop numerous times. The defendant ignored the instructions and continued
D D
to drive for about 10 minutes (13 km) before being blocked by PVs 1 and 2.
E E
F F
5. When being pursued by PVs 1 and 2, the defendant drove the
G Car at 90 to 190 km/h. The speed limits of the road segments covered by the G
H pursuit ranged from 50 to 80 km/h. The defendant overtook a number of H
I cars by changing lanes; jumped 7 red lights; and drove on the wrong side of I
J
the road twice. J
K K
6. PVs 1 and 2 managed to box in the Car when the defendant
L L
attempted to make a U-turn outside a school at No.300 Nam Cheong Street
M M
in Shek Kip Mei. PWs 4 and 5 rushed to the Car, but the defendant refused
N N
to get out and continued to reverse the Car. PWs 4 and 5 used their batons to
O O
hit the windscreen and the driver's window of the Car.
P P
Q 7. The defendant alighted from the Car and tried to escape. The Q
R Car slid forward without a driver. Its rear offside collided with the front R
S
nearside of PV2. S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 4 -
A A
Charges 2 to 4
B B
C 8. PW5 tried to subdue the defendant at the rear nearside of PV2. C
D The defendant waved his hands and tried to kick PW5's lower body. PW5 D
E
ordered him to stop; or otherwise PW5 would use his baton. The defendant E
ignored PW5 and continued to resist vigorously.
F F
G G
9. PWs 2 to 4 assisted PW5 in subduing the defendant. The
H H
defendant resisted and kept pulling PWs 2 to 5 towards the pavement.
I I
During the struggle, PWs 2 and 3 were pushed onto the railings at the
J J
pavement. When the defendant was pressed on the ground by PWs 2 to 5, he
K K
continued waving his arms and kicking his legs. PW4's arm was kicked by
L the defendant during the struggle. L
M M
N 10. Subsequent medical examination confirmed that PW2 N
sustained tenderness, abrasion and swelling on his right forearm; PW3,
O O
tenderness on right elbow, tenderness and bruising on right hand; and PW4,
P P
tenderness and abrasion on both arms.
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 5 -
A A
Charge 5
B B
C 11. About 12:25 a.m. on the same day, PW2 searched the Car in C
D the presence of the defendant. He found 2 transparent resealable plastic D
E
bags which contained traces of ketamine underneath the driver's seat. E
F F
Charge 6
G G
H 12. About 1:00 in the same night, PW2 conducted a Drug Influence H
I Recognition Observation test on the defendant, which he failed. The I
J
defendant's blood sample was taken on the same day and sent to the J
Government Laboratory for analysis. The results revealed that his blood
K K
sample contained 0.18 μg/ml of ketamine.
L L
M M
Mitigation & Sentence
N N
13. The defendant is 37 and has 10 conviction records which
O O
included 1 "Drink driving" offence, 3 "Resisting a police officer" offences
P P
and 4 "simple possession" offences. In terms of traffic record, the defendant
Q Q
has 4 convictions of "Careless driving" and 16 fixed penalty tickets (10 of
R R
which were "Speeding").
S S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 6 -
A A
14. Defence solicitor Mr. Cheung informed me that the defendant
B B
and his girlfriend have a son (almost 11 months old). Prior to the present
C C
case, he worked as a finance consultant earning $25,000 per month.
D D
According to the DATC Report, the defendant started using ketamine in
E E
2011 but stopped in 2015. He relapsed into his drug habit in 2020 due to the
F F
stress arising from the birth of his son.
G G
H 15. In mitigation, Mr. Cheung submitted that the defendant tried to H
I escape police inspection from the Roadblock because he wanted to look I
J
after his then new born son and did not want to get caught. J
K K
Charge 1
L L
M 16. I have viewed the footage of the pursuit of the Car captured by M
N cameras installed on PVs 1 and 2. The defendant's driving manner was N
beyond appalling. He drove in such a dangerous way in order to avoid
O O
apprehension by the Police. It would not be exaggerating to say that he had
P P
disobeyed pretty much all the traffic regulations, signs, signals and road
Q Q
markings along the way. It was most fortunate that he did not hit any
R R
pedestrians or crash into any vehicles.
S S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 7 -
A A
17. I have considered the Court of Appeal's decision in SJ v KO
B B
Wai Kit, Paul [2001] 3 HKLRD 751. Since ketamine was found in the
C C
defendant's blood sample, the maximum prison term for this offence is
D D
3
increased by 50% from 3 years to 4.5 years . I adopt a starting point of 3
E E
years' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to
F F
24 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant
G any further discount. I sentence the defendant to 24 months' imprisonment G
H for this charge. H
I I
J
Charges 2 to 4 J
K K
18. The defendant should consider himself lucky that he is charged
L under the Police Force Ordinance instead of the Offences against the Person L
M Ordinance (Cap.212). The former carries a maximum term of 6 months' M
N imprisonment; whereas the latter, 2 years. Considering the injuries of PWs N
2 to 4, I adopt a starting point of 4.5 months' imprisonment for each charge.
O O
With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 3 months each. I
P P
sentence the defendant to 3 months' imprisonment each for Charges 2 to 4.
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
3
See section 37(2D) and (2E)(b) of Cap.374.
U U
V V
由此
- 8 -
A A
Charge 5
B B
C 19. The defendant had in his possession traces of ketamine. C
D Although the DATC Report reveals that he is no longer a drug dependant, he D
E
is not new to drug-related offences. Based on the type and quantity of the E
drug involved, I adopt a starting point of 9 months' imprisonment. With the
F F
timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 6 months. I sentence the
G G
defendant to 6 months' imprisonment for this charge.
H H
I I
Charge 6
J J
20. The defendant knew better than anyone that he had consumed
K K
ketamine before he sat behind the steering wheel. His driving manner,
L L
affected by the drug or not, was appalling. An immediate custodial sentence
M M
4
is required. Bearing in mind the maximum penalty for this offence , I adopt
N N
a starting point of 6 months' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the
O O
sentence is reduced to 4 months.
P P
Q Overall sentence Q
R R
21. The ketamine involved in Charge 5 was probably the leftover
S S
of what the defendant had consumed in that evening. Charge 6 is clearly an
T T
4
A fine at Level 4 ($25,000) and imprisonment for 3 years.
U U
V V
由此
- 9 -
A A
aggravation of Charge 1; and I have reminded myself not to punish the
B B
defendant twice. On the other hand, Charges 2 to 4 are separate and distinct
C C
from the driving and drug-related offences. Having considered the totality
D D
principle, I make the following order :
E E
(i) Charges 1, 5 and 6 to run concurrently; and
F F
(ii) Charges 2 to 4 to run concurrently, but 2 months consecutive to
G Charges 1, 5 and 6. G
H H
Thus, arriving at a total prison term of 26 months for all 6 charges.
I I
J J
Other orders
K K
22. For Charge 1, a disqualification order is inevitable. I have
L L
borne in mind the comments made by the Court of Appeal generally on
M M
disqualification orders in SJ v HUNG Ling Kwok [2010] 4 HKLRD 365 and
N N
HKSAR v CHAN Kim Ching CACC 69/20145. Since ketamine was found in
O O
the defendant's blood sample and this is his 1st conviction of "Dangerous
P driving", the disqualification period for this offence is increased by 50% P
Q from not less than 6 months to not less than 9 months. I make a Q
R disqualification order for a period of 2 years6. The defendant has a "Drink R
S
driving" conviction dated October 2010, which is a "relevant scheduled S
T 5
An unreported Chinese judgment. T
6
See section 37(2) and (2A); (2D) and (2E)(b) of Cap.374.
U U
V V
由此
- 10 -
A A
offence" for the purpose of section 69A of Cap.374. I am aware that 5 years
B B
have passed since the defendant's last conviction of a "relevant scheduled
C C
offence". Notwithstanding section 69A(3) of Cap.374, I order that the
D D
disqualification order for Charge 1 shall not start to run until the defendant
E E
has finished serving the term of imprisonment imposed in the present case7.
F F
G 23. The defendant's driving manner renders him a serious threat G
H and danger to other road users. In order to rectify his reckless and H
I irresponsible behaviour, I order him to be re-tested8 for Charge 1. On this I
J
basis, I do not see the need to order him to complete a Driving Improvement J
Course. I make no order in this regard for Charges 1 or 6.
K K
L L
24. For Charge 6, I also make a disqualification order for a period
M M
of 2 years9. For the same reasons explained in paragraph 22 above, I order
N that the disqualification order for Charge 6 shall not start to run until the N
O defendant has finished serving the term of imprisonment imposed in the O
P present case. P
Q Q
(G. Lam)
R District Judge R
S S
7
See section 69A(2) of Cap.374.
8
Under section 70(2) of Cap.374.
T 9
Section 39K(2) and (3) of Cap.374 stipulates a mandatory disqualification period of not less than T
2 years in the case of a 1st conviction.
U U
V V
由此
A A
B DCCC 105/2021 B
[2021] HKDC 804
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO. 105 OF 2021 E
F F
____________
G G
HKSAR
H v H
LOI Kan-chi
I I
____________
J J
K Before : H.H. Judge G. Lam K
Date : 2 July 20211
L Present : Mr. Fu Chong Sang, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR. L
Mr. Raymond Cheung of M/s Y.L. Yeung & Co. for
M
the defendant. M
Offences : (1) Dangerous driving（危險駕駛）
(2) to (4) Resisting a police officer in the execution of
N N
his duty（抗拒執行職責的警務人員）
(5) Possession of a dangerous drug（管有危險藥物）
O O
(6) Driving a motor vehicle with any concentration of
a specified illicit drug（在體內含有任何濃度的
P P
指明毒品時駕駛汽車）
Q Q
R REASONS FOR SENTENCE R
S S
T T
1
The sentencing date was fixed for 28 June 2021; however, all court proceedings on that day were
adjourned owing to a Black Rainstorm Warning.
U U
V V
由此
- 2 -
A A
The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Dangerous
B B
driving" (Charge 1); 3 charges of "Resisting a police officer in the execution
C C
2
of his duty " (Charges 2 to 4); a charge of "Possession of a dangerous drug"
D D
(Charge 5); and a charge of "Driving a motor vehicle with any concentration
E E
of a specified illicit drug" (Charge 6).
F F
G Summary of Facts G
H H
2. This case arose from an inspection at a police roadblock set up
I I
near Lamppost No.AB0723 at West Kowloon Highway ("the Roadblock").
J J
K K
Charge 1
L L
3. Around midnight on 24 October 2020, PC 9216 (PW1)
M M
approached a private car WT619 ("the Car") stopped at the Roadblock. He
N N
asked the driver (later identified as the defendant) to show his driving
O O
licence and identity card. The defendant ignored PW1 and drove off. Two
P police vehicles (PV1 and PV2) respectively driven by PC 11236 (PW2) and P
Q SGT 53819 (PW3) immediately gave chase. IP H.W. Cheung (PW4) and Q
R SIP K.Z. Leung (PW5) were also on board of PVs 1 and 2 respectively. R
S S
T T
2
Contrary to section 63 of the Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232).
U U
V V
由此
- 3 -
A A
4. The sirens and flashing lights of both PVs 1 and 2 were
B B
switched on. Police officers on board used loudhailers to order the Car to
C C
stop numerous times. The defendant ignored the instructions and continued
D D
to drive for about 10 minutes (13 km) before being blocked by PVs 1 and 2.
E E
F F
5. When being pursued by PVs 1 and 2, the defendant drove the
G Car at 90 to 190 km/h. The speed limits of the road segments covered by the G
H pursuit ranged from 50 to 80 km/h. The defendant overtook a number of H
I cars by changing lanes; jumped 7 red lights; and drove on the wrong side of I
J
the road twice. J
K K
6. PVs 1 and 2 managed to box in the Car when the defendant
L L
attempted to make a U-turn outside a school at No.300 Nam Cheong Street
M M
in Shek Kip Mei. PWs 4 and 5 rushed to the Car, but the defendant refused
N N
to get out and continued to reverse the Car. PWs 4 and 5 used their batons to
O O
hit the windscreen and the driver's window of the Car.
P P
Q 7. The defendant alighted from the Car and tried to escape. The Q
R Car slid forward without a driver. Its rear offside collided with the front R
S
nearside of PV2. S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 4 -
A A
Charges 2 to 4
B B
C 8. PW5 tried to subdue the defendant at the rear nearside of PV2. C
D The defendant waved his hands and tried to kick PW5's lower body. PW5 D
E
ordered him to stop; or otherwise PW5 would use his baton. The defendant E
ignored PW5 and continued to resist vigorously.
F F
G G
9. PWs 2 to 4 assisted PW5 in subduing the defendant. The
H H
defendant resisted and kept pulling PWs 2 to 5 towards the pavement.
I I
During the struggle, PWs 2 and 3 were pushed onto the railings at the
J J
pavement. When the defendant was pressed on the ground by PWs 2 to 5, he
K K
continued waving his arms and kicking his legs. PW4's arm was kicked by
L the defendant during the struggle. L
M M
N 10. Subsequent medical examination confirmed that PW2 N
sustained tenderness, abrasion and swelling on his right forearm; PW3,
O O
tenderness on right elbow, tenderness and bruising on right hand; and PW4,
P P
tenderness and abrasion on both arms.
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 5 -
A A
Charge 5
B B
C 11. About 12:25 a.m. on the same day, PW2 searched the Car in C
D the presence of the defendant. He found 2 transparent resealable plastic D
E
bags which contained traces of ketamine underneath the driver's seat. E
F F
Charge 6
G G
H 12. About 1:00 in the same night, PW2 conducted a Drug Influence H
I Recognition Observation test on the defendant, which he failed. The I
J
defendant's blood sample was taken on the same day and sent to the J
Government Laboratory for analysis. The results revealed that his blood
K K
sample contained 0.18 μg/ml of ketamine.
L L
M M
Mitigation & Sentence
N N
13. The defendant is 37 and has 10 conviction records which
O O
included 1 "Drink driving" offence, 3 "Resisting a police officer" offences
P P
and 4 "simple possession" offences. In terms of traffic record, the defendant
Q Q
has 4 convictions of "Careless driving" and 16 fixed penalty tickets (10 of
R R
which were "Speeding").
S S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 6 -
A A
14. Defence solicitor Mr. Cheung informed me that the defendant
B B
and his girlfriend have a son (almost 11 months old). Prior to the present
C C
case, he worked as a finance consultant earning $25,000 per month.
D D
According to the DATC Report, the defendant started using ketamine in
E E
2011 but stopped in 2015. He relapsed into his drug habit in 2020 due to the
F F
stress arising from the birth of his son.
G G
H 15. In mitigation, Mr. Cheung submitted that the defendant tried to H
I escape police inspection from the Roadblock because he wanted to look I
J
after his then new born son and did not want to get caught. J
K K
Charge 1
L L
M 16. I have viewed the footage of the pursuit of the Car captured by M
N cameras installed on PVs 1 and 2. The defendant's driving manner was N
beyond appalling. He drove in such a dangerous way in order to avoid
O O
apprehension by the Police. It would not be exaggerating to say that he had
P P
disobeyed pretty much all the traffic regulations, signs, signals and road
Q Q
markings along the way. It was most fortunate that he did not hit any
R R
pedestrians or crash into any vehicles.
S S
T T
U U
V V
由此
- 7 -
A A
17. I have considered the Court of Appeal's decision in SJ v KO
B B
Wai Kit, Paul [2001] 3 HKLRD 751. Since ketamine was found in the
C C
defendant's blood sample, the maximum prison term for this offence is
D D
3
increased by 50% from 3 years to 4.5 years . I adopt a starting point of 3
E E
years' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to
F F
24 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant
G any further discount. I sentence the defendant to 24 months' imprisonment G
H for this charge. H
I I
J
Charges 2 to 4 J
K K
18. The defendant should consider himself lucky that he is charged
L under the Police Force Ordinance instead of the Offences against the Person L
M Ordinance (Cap.212). The former carries a maximum term of 6 months' M
N imprisonment; whereas the latter, 2 years. Considering the injuries of PWs N
2 to 4, I adopt a starting point of 4.5 months' imprisonment for each charge.
O O
With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 3 months each. I
P P
sentence the defendant to 3 months' imprisonment each for Charges 2 to 4.
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
3
See section 37(2D) and (2E)(b) of Cap.374.
U U
V V
由此
- 8 -
A A
Charge 5
B B
C 19. The defendant had in his possession traces of ketamine. C
D Although the DATC Report reveals that he is no longer a drug dependant, he D
E
is not new to drug-related offences. Based on the type and quantity of the E
drug involved, I adopt a starting point of 9 months' imprisonment. With the
F F
timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 6 months. I sentence the
G G
defendant to 6 months' imprisonment for this charge.
H H
I I
Charge 6
J J
20. The defendant knew better than anyone that he had consumed
K K
ketamine before he sat behind the steering wheel. His driving manner,
L L
affected by the drug or not, was appalling. An immediate custodial sentence
M M
4
is required. Bearing in mind the maximum penalty for this offence , I adopt
N N
a starting point of 6 months' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the
O O
sentence is reduced to 4 months.
P P
Q Overall sentence Q
R R
21. The ketamine involved in Charge 5 was probably the leftover
S S
of what the defendant had consumed in that evening. Charge 6 is clearly an
T T
4
A fine at Level 4 ($25,000) and imprisonment for 3 years.
U U
V V
由此
- 9 -
A A
aggravation of Charge 1; and I have reminded myself not to punish the
B B
defendant twice. On the other hand, Charges 2 to 4 are separate and distinct
C C
from the driving and drug-related offences. Having considered the totality
D D
principle, I make the following order :
E E
(i) Charges 1, 5 and 6 to run concurrently; and
F F
(ii) Charges 2 to 4 to run concurrently, but 2 months consecutive to
G Charges 1, 5 and 6. G
H H
Thus, arriving at a total prison term of 26 months for all 6 charges.
I I
J J
Other orders
K K
22. For Charge 1, a disqualification order is inevitable. I have
L L
borne in mind the comments made by the Court of Appeal generally on
M M
disqualification orders in SJ v HUNG Ling Kwok [2010] 4 HKLRD 365 and
N N
HKSAR v CHAN Kim Ching CACC 69/20145. Since ketamine was found in
O O
the defendant's blood sample and this is his 1st conviction of "Dangerous
P driving", the disqualification period for this offence is increased by 50% P
Q from not less than 6 months to not less than 9 months. I make a Q
R disqualification order for a period of 2 years6. The defendant has a "Drink R
S
driving" conviction dated October 2010, which is a "relevant scheduled S
T 5
An unreported Chinese judgment. T
6
See section 37(2) and (2A); (2D) and (2E)(b) of Cap.374.
U U
V V
由此
- 10 -
A A
offence" for the purpose of section 69A of Cap.374. I am aware that 5 years
B B
have passed since the defendant's last conviction of a "relevant scheduled
C C
offence". Notwithstanding section 69A(3) of Cap.374, I order that the
D D
disqualification order for Charge 1 shall not start to run until the defendant
E E
has finished serving the term of imprisonment imposed in the present case7.
F F
G 23. The defendant's driving manner renders him a serious threat G
H and danger to other road users. In order to rectify his reckless and H
I irresponsible behaviour, I order him to be re-tested8 for Charge 1. On this I
J
basis, I do not see the need to order him to complete a Driving Improvement J
Course. I make no order in this regard for Charges 1 or 6.
K K
L L
24. For Charge 6, I also make a disqualification order for a period
M M
of 2 years9. For the same reasons explained in paragraph 22 above, I order
N that the disqualification order for Charge 6 shall not start to run until the N
O defendant has finished serving the term of imprisonment imposed in the O
P present case. P
Q Q
(G. Lam)
R District Judge R
S S
7
See section 69A(2) of Cap.374.
8
Under section 70(2) of Cap.374.
T 9
Section 39K(2) and (3) of Cap.374 stipulates a mandatory disqualification period of not less than T
2 years in the case of a 1st conviction.
U U
V V