區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Peony Wong13/5/2025[2025] HKDC 816
DCCC160/2024
A A
B B
DCCC 160/2024
C [2025] HKDC 816 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 160 OF 2024
F F
G ------------------------------------ G
HKSAR
H H
v
I UMER-FAROOQ (D2) I
------------------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Peony Wong K
Date: 14 May 2025
L L
Present: Mr Ma Yu Kit, Justin, Senior Public Prosecutor (Ag), for
M HKSAR M
Mr Edward McGuinniety, instructed by Chaudhry
N N
Solicitors, for the 2nd defendant
O Offences: Doing an act or a series of acts tending and intended to O
pervert the course of public justice（作出一項或一連串傾
P P
向並意圖妨礙司法公正的作為）
Q Q
R ---------------------------------------- R
REASONS FOR VERDICT
S S
----------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The 2nd Defendant had pleaded not guilty to Charge 7, i.e.
C Doing an Act or a Series of Acts Tending and Intended to Pervert the C
Course of Public Justice, contrary to Common Law and punishable under
D D
section 101I(5) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap 221). He was
E jointly charged with the 1st and 3rd Defendants, who had pleaded guilty. E
F F
2. Simply stated, the Prosecution case is that the 1 st to 3rd
G Defendants have agreed that a false representation be made to the police G
that the 1st Defendant was the driver of a private car NA6660 (hereinafter
H H
referred to as the “Vehicle”) which was involved in a traffic accident
I outside West Wing of Justice Place on Lower Albert Road (hereinafter I
referred to as “the Scene”).
J J
K 3. Parties agreed the entirety of the Prosecution case by way of K
Admitted Facts. It is not in dispute that on the day in question, i.e. 28 July
L L
rd rd
2023, the 3 Defendant was the registered owner of the Vehicle. The 3
M Defendant, apart from being the driver in question when the accident M
occurred, had used the Vehicle when its vehicle licence had expired on 13
N N
July 2023, and that the third party insurance does not cover situations
O O
where the driver does not hold a driving license or had been disqualified.
P
It was also not in dispute that the 3rd Defendant was disqualified from P
driving from 11 May 2023 for 6 months.
Q Q
R
4. On 28 July 2023, at around 5:15 am, the 2 nd Defendant drove R
the Vehicle with the 3rd Defendant and an Indian male (hereinafter referred
S S
to as “X”) on board to Central. The Vehicle was parked outside a building,
T and the 3 of them went inside a restaurant at the said building at around T
5:18 am. At around 6:50 am, they left the restaurant and boarded the
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
Vehicle, with the 3rd Defendant in the driver’s seat, X at the front passenger
C seat and the 2nd Defendant at the rear passenger seat. C
D D
5. At around 7 am, the Vehicle was traveling downhill and
E making a right turn on Lower Albert Road, when it suddenly swerved to E
its left onto the pedestrian pavement, and crashed onto a security kiosk of
F F
West Wing, Justice Place. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants and X left the
G Vehicle immediately, fled towards the direction of Wyndham Street, and G
boarded a taxi at Queen’s Road Central at around 7:05 am.
H H
I 6. At around 7:16 am, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and X alighted I
the taxi outside a carpark at Ka Wai Chuen in Hung Hom (hereinafter
J J
referred to as “the Carpark”). The 2nd Defendant and X waited at the
K Carpark, while the 3rd Defendant went home at Wuhu Street nearby at K
around 7:19 am. At around 7:28 am, the 3rd Defendant and his younger
L L
brother the 1st Defendant joined the 2nd Defendant and X at the Carpark.
M At about 7:29 am, the 1st to 3rd Defendants and X left the Carpark together. M
N N
7. At around 7:30 am, the 1st and 2nd Defendants boarded a taxi
O near the Carpark. At about 8:05 am, the taxi reached Ice House Street near O
the Hong Kong Diamond Exchange Building, and the 1st and 2nd
P P
Defendants alighted. They walked towards Lower Albert Road, with the
Q 1st Defendant walking ahead. At about 8:08 am, the 2nd Defendant made a Q
U-turn and walked towards Queen’s Road Central.
R R
S 8. At about 8:10 am, the 1st Defendant approached the police on S
Lower Albert Road in the vicinity of the Scene. The 1st Defendant made
T T
the representation to the police officers present that he had driven the
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
Vehicle from his residence in Hung Hom to Lan Kwai Fong in the early
C hours of that day and had parked the Vehicle in Lan Kwai Fong, that he C
was the driver of the Vehicle, and had lost control of the Vehicle at the
D D
time of the accident. He also stated that he had fled after the accident, and
E had now come back to face the consequences. E
F F
9. At 12:15 pm, the police arrested the 1st Defendant for the
G offences of dangerous driving and criminal damage. At 9:45 to 10:15 pm, G
the police took the 1st Defendant to the 1st and 3rd Defendants’ residence
H H
for house search. The 3rd Defendant was not at home, and the key of the
I Vehicle was found at the house search. I
J J
10. The 2nd Defendant surrendered to the police at 2:40 pm on 29
K July 2023. He was arrested for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. K
The 3rd Defendant surrendered on 31 July 2023, and was arrested for
L L
conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and traffic related offences.
M M
Case Analysis
N N
O 11. I bear in mind that the Prosecution has the burden of proving O
all elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The 2 nd Defendant
P P
nd
does not have the burden of proving his innocence. The 2 Defendant has
Q a clear record, and I shall bear that in mind when assessing his propensity Q
to commit crime. He has elected not to give evidence, and I shall not draw
R R
any adverse inference from that fact.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
12. The legal principles concerning the offence of perverting the
C course of justice, and conspiracy, are clear. In HKSAR v Wong Chi Wai C
(2013) 16 HKCFAR 539 at pp.553-554:
D D
E
“An attempt to pervert the course of justice is ‘the doing of some E
act which has a tendency and is intended to pervert the
administration of public justice.’ The actus reus is thus the
F doing of the act with the prohibited tendency and the mens rea F
is the intention to pervert the course of justice.”
G G
13. The offence is committed even where the act with the
H prohibited tendency does not actually result in interference with the course H
of justice. A person’s conduct has a tendency to pervert the course of
I I
justice if it has a tendency towards impairing or preventing the exercise of
J the capacity of a Court or competent judicial authority to do justice in curial J
proceedings.
K K
L L
14. To prove that a defendant intended to pervert the course of
M
public justice, it is necessary to prove that he knew that his conduct would M
have or that he intended it to have a tendency to pervert the course of justice
N N
in relation to the curial proceedings in question. Where his conduct has a
O manifest tendency to pervert the course of justice, the required intention O
may readily be inferred from proof that the defendant intended to perform
P P
the relevant act.
Q Q
15. The Prosecution is advancing its case on the basic form of
R R
joint enterprise, which involves the co-adventurers simply agreeing to
S carry out and then executing a planned crime, having a common purpose, S
understanding or agreement. The understanding or arrangement need not
T T
be express and may be inferred from all the circumstances. Guilt will be
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
established under such circumstances regardless of the part that each has
C played in the conduct that constitutes the actus reus, and therefore is not C
nd
dependent on the 2 Defendant sharing physical performance of the actus
D D
reus (see HKSAR v Chan Kam Shing (2016) 19 HKCFAR 640).
E E
16. The 2nd Defendant was the person who initially drove the
F F
Vehicle to Central, after which the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and X attended
G a restaurant in the small hours of around 5 am. They stayed at that G
restaurant for about 1.5 hour, before the 3 of them left in the Vehicle with
H H
the 3rd Defendant being the driver. The 2nd Defendant was the rear seat
I passenger of the Vehicle at the time of the accident. I
J J
17. The Defence suggests that the 2nd Defendant might be drunk,
K or might have been injured in the accident. The Court is of the view that K
there was no evidence of such. From the CCTV outside the restaurant,
L L
despite him appearing to be tired and a little unsteady with his steps, he
M was able to walk, and the Court cannot speculate as to the cause of the said M
unsteadiness. He and the others were out in the early hours of around 5 am,
N N
and it was 6:50 am when they left the restaurant. The said appearance of
O the 2nd Defendant could have been caused by a variety of factors, for O
example fatigue from being awake in the small hours. There is also no
P P
evidence before the Court that he had consumed alcohol at anytime prior
Q to the accident. The same applies to the suggestion of him being injured, Q
with even less strength to the suggestion as he was very agile in the CCTV
R R
footages of the flight from the Vehicle and the subsequent events at the
S Carpark and upon return to the vicinity of the Scene. I am of the view that S
the suggestions of him being drunk or that of him being injured from the
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
accident are not supported by the evidence available, and therefore the
C Court does not have to consider such possibilities. C
D D
18. But even assuming that the Court has to consider such
E possibilities, the Court is of the view that having consumed alcohol or E
being injured is one matter, but having consumed so much alcohol or
F F
having the injuries affecting the 2nd Defendant to such an extent that he did
G not know he had travelled back from Hung Hom to Central, or why he had G
done so, is another matter.
H H
I 19. Firstly, even assuming he had consumed alcohol at the I
restaurant or that he had been injured in the accident, he left the restaurant
J J
at about 6:50 am, and after the accident he was able to flee without
K difficulty from the Vehicle at around 7 am. It can be seen from the CCTV K
footage near the Scene that he had alighted the Vehicle closely behind the
L L
others. He was swift in his actions, and there was no sign of him being
M drunk or injured (See P3(23) Screen capture of the CCTV footage). He M
was able to follow the 2 others from Lower Albert Road to Ice House Street,
N N
ran through parts of it (see P3(27)), and onto Queen’s Road Central, where
O they boarded a taxi together. There was again no difficulty when he O
alighted the taxi in Hung Hom at about 7:16 am.
P P
Q 20. Secondly, instead of going home, he waited around for the 3rd Q
Defendant to go home and to return with the 1st Defendant. Thereafter he
R R
st
boarded a taxi with the 1 Defendant back to Central. If he wished to rest
S or to seek medical treatment, he could have remained on Kowloon side, S
and not to retake the same route again back to Lower Albert Road, the
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
vicinity of the Scene. He would not have done so if he had been drunk or
C been injured to the extent as to affect the mens rea in his case. C
D D
21. The Defence also suggests that the 2nd Defendant might have
E lost something in the Vehicle, and had went back to retrieve it. There is no E
evidence to suggest such a possibility, and therefore there is no need for
F F
the Court to consider it.
G G
22. As for the Defence suggestion that the 2nd Defendant might
H H
have been curious about the aftermath of the accident, or he wanted to
I return to the Scene to account for his role as a passenger, the Court is of I
the view that it is unreasonable. He was a mere passenger, and there was
J J
no duty on him to volunteer assistance to the authorities. There was
K nothing to be curious about, he was conscious when he escaped from the K
Vehicle, he knew what had happened. By approaching the police, it would
L L
only result in possible revelation of the role of his friend the 3rd Defendant
M in the matter. In any event, his action of suddenly taking a U-turn on Ice M
House Street, instead of going to the police at the Scene, speaks the exact
N N
opposite of the Defence suggestion. I do not accept that as a possibility of
O what had happened. O
P P
23. There was also no evidence supporting the Defence
Q suggestion that the 2nd Defendant had been threatened to return to the Q
vicinity of the Scene. This suggestion, as with other Defence suggestions,
R R
enters the realm of speculation which the Court must not take part in.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
24. I am of the view that, taking the relevant facts which are not
C in dispute:- C
D D
(a) the 2nd Defendant had spent at least 2 hours with the 3 rd
E Defendant (from around 5:15 am when the 2nd Defendant, the E
3rd Defendant and X left the Vehicle until about 7:19 am when
F F
the 3rd Defendant left the 2nd Defendant and X and went home),
G when the 3rd Defendant was wearing the clothes he was G
wearing at the time of the accident, and which were worn by
H H
the 1st Defendant later on during the trip from Hung Hom to
I Central and the vicinity of the Scene; I
J J
(b) the 2nd Defendant did not leave after arriving Hung Hom at
K about 7:16 am, and instead stayed at the Carpark until about K
7:29 am with X, and during some part of the said period with
L L
the 1st and 3rd Defendants also present;
M M
(c) there was some conversation within the group of people
N N
comprising of the 1st to 3rd Defendants and X during the time
O stated in (b) hereinabove; O
P P
nd
(d) the 2 Defendant having at around 7:30 am boarded a taxi
Q from Hung Hom back to Ice House Street with the 1 st Q
Defendant who was wearing the clothes earlier worn by the
R R
rd
3 Defendant at the time of the accident;
S S
(e) after alighting from the taxi, the 2nd Defendant walking not far
T T
st
behind the 1 Defendant for about 3 minutes (from about 8:05
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
to 8:08 am) on Ice House Street towards Lower Albert Road
C and appearing to be talking on the phone on the way; and C
D D
(f) the 2nd Defendant suddenly making a U-turn on Ice House
E Street towards Queen’s Road Central. E
F F
25. I am of the view that prior to leaving from Hung Hom to
G Central with the 1st Defendant, the 2nd Defendant must have known that the G
1st Defendant was wearing the clothing that the 3rd Defendant had worn at
H H
the time of the accident. I am also satisfied that armed with that knowledge,
I the 2nd Defendant’s decision to remain in the Carpark during the I
conversation of certain persons in the group which included the 1st to 3rd
J J
st
Defendants and X, and to board a taxi with the 1 Defendant shortly after
K the 1st and 3rd Defendants came to the carpark together, was the result of a K
common purpose, agreement or understanding with the 1 st and 3rd
L L
st
Defendants, that the 1 Defendant shall approach the Scene and claim to
M be the driver at the time of the accident, and that the 2 nd Defendant’s role M
was to accompany the 1st Defendant on the taxi and to a location in the
N N
st
vicinity of the Scene, so as to guide the 1 Defendant who had not been
O
present at the accident. The 3rd Defendant’s role was to lay low and avoid O
P
attending the Scene, as can be demonstrated by not boarding the taxi back P
to Central, and not being at his residence when the police arrived later that
Q Q
day, and leaving the Vehicle’s key at his home.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
26. The Court is of the view that the fact that the 2 nd Defendant
C was walking behind the 1st Defendant does not negate from the above C
conclusion, as one could guide by means other than walking in front. The
D D
fact that the 2nd Defendant kept talking on the phone along the way when
E he and the 1st Defendant were walking towards the direction of the Scene, E
combined with the other facts not in dispute, indicate a certainty that he
F F
was not wandering around, and that the route of his walking had a sense of
G purpose, the purpose of guiding the 1st Defendant to the vicinity of the G
Scene.
H H
I 27. The Court is also of the view that by alighting in the vicinity I
but not yet on the street of the Scene, and the U-turn on Ice House Street
J J
after walking for 3 minutes simply prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
K 1st and 2nd Defendants were to alight some distance away from the Scene, K
and that the 2nd Defendant shall guide the 1st Defendant to the direction of
L L
the Scene from the back, and for the 2 nd Defendant to leave the 1st
M Defendant to deal with the claiming as driver of the Vehicle at a suitable M
time. As stated above, there is no other reasonable possibility that the 2 nd
N N
Defendant should return to Central and walk in the vicinity of the Scene
O again. O
P P
28. I am also satisfied that the actions and conduct of the
Q Defendants had the manifest tendency to pervert the course of public Q
justice. I am satisfied that the 2nd Defendant, together with the other
R R
Defendants, intended the actions and conduct of the Defendants to have the
S tendency to pervert the course of public justice, i.e. to allow the 3rd S
Defendant to escape sanction for his criminal behaviour which includes the
T T
dangerous driving which caused the accident.
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
C 29. I am therefore of the view that the Prosecution has proved all C
nd
elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The 2 Defendant is
D D
therefore convicted.
E E
F F
G ( Peony Wong ) G
Deputy District Judge
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 160/2024
C [2025] HKDC 816 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 160 OF 2024
F F
G ------------------------------------ G
HKSAR
H H
v
I UMER-FAROOQ (D2) I
------------------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Peony Wong K
Date: 14 May 2025
L L
Present: Mr Ma Yu Kit, Justin, Senior Public Prosecutor (Ag), for
M HKSAR M
Mr Edward McGuinniety, instructed by Chaudhry
N N
Solicitors, for the 2nd defendant
O Offences: Doing an act or a series of acts tending and intended to O
pervert the course of public justice（作出一項或一連串傾
P P
向並意圖妨礙司法公正的作為）
Q Q
R ---------------------------------------- R
REASONS FOR VERDICT
S S
----------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The 2nd Defendant had pleaded not guilty to Charge 7, i.e.
C Doing an Act or a Series of Acts Tending and Intended to Pervert the C
Course of Public Justice, contrary to Common Law and punishable under
D D
section 101I(5) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap 221). He was
E jointly charged with the 1st and 3rd Defendants, who had pleaded guilty. E
F F
2. Simply stated, the Prosecution case is that the 1 st to 3rd
G Defendants have agreed that a false representation be made to the police G
that the 1st Defendant was the driver of a private car NA6660 (hereinafter
H H
referred to as the “Vehicle”) which was involved in a traffic accident
I outside West Wing of Justice Place on Lower Albert Road (hereinafter I
referred to as “the Scene”).
J J
K 3. Parties agreed the entirety of the Prosecution case by way of K
Admitted Facts. It is not in dispute that on the day in question, i.e. 28 July
L L
rd rd
2023, the 3 Defendant was the registered owner of the Vehicle. The 3
M Defendant, apart from being the driver in question when the accident M
occurred, had used the Vehicle when its vehicle licence had expired on 13
N N
July 2023, and that the third party insurance does not cover situations
O O
where the driver does not hold a driving license or had been disqualified.
P
It was also not in dispute that the 3rd Defendant was disqualified from P
driving from 11 May 2023 for 6 months.
Q Q
R
4. On 28 July 2023, at around 5:15 am, the 2 nd Defendant drove R
the Vehicle with the 3rd Defendant and an Indian male (hereinafter referred
S S
to as “X”) on board to Central. The Vehicle was parked outside a building,
T and the 3 of them went inside a restaurant at the said building at around T
5:18 am. At around 6:50 am, they left the restaurant and boarded the
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
Vehicle, with the 3rd Defendant in the driver’s seat, X at the front passenger
C seat and the 2nd Defendant at the rear passenger seat. C
D D
5. At around 7 am, the Vehicle was traveling downhill and
E making a right turn on Lower Albert Road, when it suddenly swerved to E
its left onto the pedestrian pavement, and crashed onto a security kiosk of
F F
West Wing, Justice Place. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants and X left the
G Vehicle immediately, fled towards the direction of Wyndham Street, and G
boarded a taxi at Queen’s Road Central at around 7:05 am.
H H
I 6. At around 7:16 am, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and X alighted I
the taxi outside a carpark at Ka Wai Chuen in Hung Hom (hereinafter
J J
referred to as “the Carpark”). The 2nd Defendant and X waited at the
K Carpark, while the 3rd Defendant went home at Wuhu Street nearby at K
around 7:19 am. At around 7:28 am, the 3rd Defendant and his younger
L L
brother the 1st Defendant joined the 2nd Defendant and X at the Carpark.
M At about 7:29 am, the 1st to 3rd Defendants and X left the Carpark together. M
N N
7. At around 7:30 am, the 1st and 2nd Defendants boarded a taxi
O near the Carpark. At about 8:05 am, the taxi reached Ice House Street near O
the Hong Kong Diamond Exchange Building, and the 1st and 2nd
P P
Defendants alighted. They walked towards Lower Albert Road, with the
Q 1st Defendant walking ahead. At about 8:08 am, the 2nd Defendant made a Q
U-turn and walked towards Queen’s Road Central.
R R
S 8. At about 8:10 am, the 1st Defendant approached the police on S
Lower Albert Road in the vicinity of the Scene. The 1st Defendant made
T T
the representation to the police officers present that he had driven the
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
Vehicle from his residence in Hung Hom to Lan Kwai Fong in the early
C hours of that day and had parked the Vehicle in Lan Kwai Fong, that he C
was the driver of the Vehicle, and had lost control of the Vehicle at the
D D
time of the accident. He also stated that he had fled after the accident, and
E had now come back to face the consequences. E
F F
9. At 12:15 pm, the police arrested the 1st Defendant for the
G offences of dangerous driving and criminal damage. At 9:45 to 10:15 pm, G
the police took the 1st Defendant to the 1st and 3rd Defendants’ residence
H H
for house search. The 3rd Defendant was not at home, and the key of the
I Vehicle was found at the house search. I
J J
10. The 2nd Defendant surrendered to the police at 2:40 pm on 29
K July 2023. He was arrested for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. K
The 3rd Defendant surrendered on 31 July 2023, and was arrested for
L L
conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and traffic related offences.
M M
Case Analysis
N N
O 11. I bear in mind that the Prosecution has the burden of proving O
all elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The 2 nd Defendant
P P
nd
does not have the burden of proving his innocence. The 2 Defendant has
Q a clear record, and I shall bear that in mind when assessing his propensity Q
to commit crime. He has elected not to give evidence, and I shall not draw
R R
any adverse inference from that fact.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
12. The legal principles concerning the offence of perverting the
C course of justice, and conspiracy, are clear. In HKSAR v Wong Chi Wai C
(2013) 16 HKCFAR 539 at pp.553-554:
D D
E
“An attempt to pervert the course of justice is ‘the doing of some E
act which has a tendency and is intended to pervert the
administration of public justice.’ The actus reus is thus the
F doing of the act with the prohibited tendency and the mens rea F
is the intention to pervert the course of justice.”
G G
13. The offence is committed even where the act with the
H prohibited tendency does not actually result in interference with the course H
of justice. A person’s conduct has a tendency to pervert the course of
I I
justice if it has a tendency towards impairing or preventing the exercise of
J the capacity of a Court or competent judicial authority to do justice in curial J
proceedings.
K K
L L
14. To prove that a defendant intended to pervert the course of
M
public justice, it is necessary to prove that he knew that his conduct would M
have or that he intended it to have a tendency to pervert the course of justice
N N
in relation to the curial proceedings in question. Where his conduct has a
O manifest tendency to pervert the course of justice, the required intention O
may readily be inferred from proof that the defendant intended to perform
P P
the relevant act.
Q Q
15. The Prosecution is advancing its case on the basic form of
R R
joint enterprise, which involves the co-adventurers simply agreeing to
S carry out and then executing a planned crime, having a common purpose, S
understanding or agreement. The understanding or arrangement need not
T T
be express and may be inferred from all the circumstances. Guilt will be
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
established under such circumstances regardless of the part that each has
C played in the conduct that constitutes the actus reus, and therefore is not C
nd
dependent on the 2 Defendant sharing physical performance of the actus
D D
reus (see HKSAR v Chan Kam Shing (2016) 19 HKCFAR 640).
E E
16. The 2nd Defendant was the person who initially drove the
F F
Vehicle to Central, after which the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and X attended
G a restaurant in the small hours of around 5 am. They stayed at that G
restaurant for about 1.5 hour, before the 3 of them left in the Vehicle with
H H
the 3rd Defendant being the driver. The 2nd Defendant was the rear seat
I passenger of the Vehicle at the time of the accident. I
J J
17. The Defence suggests that the 2nd Defendant might be drunk,
K or might have been injured in the accident. The Court is of the view that K
there was no evidence of such. From the CCTV outside the restaurant,
L L
despite him appearing to be tired and a little unsteady with his steps, he
M was able to walk, and the Court cannot speculate as to the cause of the said M
unsteadiness. He and the others were out in the early hours of around 5 am,
N N
and it was 6:50 am when they left the restaurant. The said appearance of
O the 2nd Defendant could have been caused by a variety of factors, for O
example fatigue from being awake in the small hours. There is also no
P P
evidence before the Court that he had consumed alcohol at anytime prior
Q to the accident. The same applies to the suggestion of him being injured, Q
with even less strength to the suggestion as he was very agile in the CCTV
R R
footages of the flight from the Vehicle and the subsequent events at the
S Carpark and upon return to the vicinity of the Scene. I am of the view that S
the suggestions of him being drunk or that of him being injured from the
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
accident are not supported by the evidence available, and therefore the
C Court does not have to consider such possibilities. C
D D
18. But even assuming that the Court has to consider such
E possibilities, the Court is of the view that having consumed alcohol or E
being injured is one matter, but having consumed so much alcohol or
F F
having the injuries affecting the 2nd Defendant to such an extent that he did
G not know he had travelled back from Hung Hom to Central, or why he had G
done so, is another matter.
H H
I 19. Firstly, even assuming he had consumed alcohol at the I
restaurant or that he had been injured in the accident, he left the restaurant
J J
at about 6:50 am, and after the accident he was able to flee without
K difficulty from the Vehicle at around 7 am. It can be seen from the CCTV K
footage near the Scene that he had alighted the Vehicle closely behind the
L L
others. He was swift in his actions, and there was no sign of him being
M drunk or injured (See P3(23) Screen capture of the CCTV footage). He M
was able to follow the 2 others from Lower Albert Road to Ice House Street,
N N
ran through parts of it (see P3(27)), and onto Queen’s Road Central, where
O they boarded a taxi together. There was again no difficulty when he O
alighted the taxi in Hung Hom at about 7:16 am.
P P
Q 20. Secondly, instead of going home, he waited around for the 3rd Q
Defendant to go home and to return with the 1st Defendant. Thereafter he
R R
st
boarded a taxi with the 1 Defendant back to Central. If he wished to rest
S or to seek medical treatment, he could have remained on Kowloon side, S
and not to retake the same route again back to Lower Albert Road, the
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
vicinity of the Scene. He would not have done so if he had been drunk or
C been injured to the extent as to affect the mens rea in his case. C
D D
21. The Defence also suggests that the 2nd Defendant might have
E lost something in the Vehicle, and had went back to retrieve it. There is no E
evidence to suggest such a possibility, and therefore there is no need for
F F
the Court to consider it.
G G
22. As for the Defence suggestion that the 2nd Defendant might
H H
have been curious about the aftermath of the accident, or he wanted to
I return to the Scene to account for his role as a passenger, the Court is of I
the view that it is unreasonable. He was a mere passenger, and there was
J J
no duty on him to volunteer assistance to the authorities. There was
K nothing to be curious about, he was conscious when he escaped from the K
Vehicle, he knew what had happened. By approaching the police, it would
L L
only result in possible revelation of the role of his friend the 3rd Defendant
M in the matter. In any event, his action of suddenly taking a U-turn on Ice M
House Street, instead of going to the police at the Scene, speaks the exact
N N
opposite of the Defence suggestion. I do not accept that as a possibility of
O what had happened. O
P P
23. There was also no evidence supporting the Defence
Q suggestion that the 2nd Defendant had been threatened to return to the Q
vicinity of the Scene. This suggestion, as with other Defence suggestions,
R R
enters the realm of speculation which the Court must not take part in.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
24. I am of the view that, taking the relevant facts which are not
C in dispute:- C
D D
(a) the 2nd Defendant had spent at least 2 hours with the 3 rd
E Defendant (from around 5:15 am when the 2nd Defendant, the E
3rd Defendant and X left the Vehicle until about 7:19 am when
F F
the 3rd Defendant left the 2nd Defendant and X and went home),
G when the 3rd Defendant was wearing the clothes he was G
wearing at the time of the accident, and which were worn by
H H
the 1st Defendant later on during the trip from Hung Hom to
I Central and the vicinity of the Scene; I
J J
(b) the 2nd Defendant did not leave after arriving Hung Hom at
K about 7:16 am, and instead stayed at the Carpark until about K
7:29 am with X, and during some part of the said period with
L L
the 1st and 3rd Defendants also present;
M M
(c) there was some conversation within the group of people
N N
comprising of the 1st to 3rd Defendants and X during the time
O stated in (b) hereinabove; O
P P
nd
(d) the 2 Defendant having at around 7:30 am boarded a taxi
Q from Hung Hom back to Ice House Street with the 1 st Q
Defendant who was wearing the clothes earlier worn by the
R R
rd
3 Defendant at the time of the accident;
S S
(e) after alighting from the taxi, the 2nd Defendant walking not far
T T
st
behind the 1 Defendant for about 3 minutes (from about 8:05
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
to 8:08 am) on Ice House Street towards Lower Albert Road
C and appearing to be talking on the phone on the way; and C
D D
(f) the 2nd Defendant suddenly making a U-turn on Ice House
E Street towards Queen’s Road Central. E
F F
25. I am of the view that prior to leaving from Hung Hom to
G Central with the 1st Defendant, the 2nd Defendant must have known that the G
1st Defendant was wearing the clothing that the 3rd Defendant had worn at
H H
the time of the accident. I am also satisfied that armed with that knowledge,
I the 2nd Defendant’s decision to remain in the Carpark during the I
conversation of certain persons in the group which included the 1st to 3rd
J J
st
Defendants and X, and to board a taxi with the 1 Defendant shortly after
K the 1st and 3rd Defendants came to the carpark together, was the result of a K
common purpose, agreement or understanding with the 1 st and 3rd
L L
st
Defendants, that the 1 Defendant shall approach the Scene and claim to
M be the driver at the time of the accident, and that the 2 nd Defendant’s role M
was to accompany the 1st Defendant on the taxi and to a location in the
N N
st
vicinity of the Scene, so as to guide the 1 Defendant who had not been
O
present at the accident. The 3rd Defendant’s role was to lay low and avoid O
P
attending the Scene, as can be demonstrated by not boarding the taxi back P
to Central, and not being at his residence when the police arrived later that
Q Q
day, and leaving the Vehicle’s key at his home.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
26. The Court is of the view that the fact that the 2 nd Defendant
C was walking behind the 1st Defendant does not negate from the above C
conclusion, as one could guide by means other than walking in front. The
D D
fact that the 2nd Defendant kept talking on the phone along the way when
E he and the 1st Defendant were walking towards the direction of the Scene, E
combined with the other facts not in dispute, indicate a certainty that he
F F
was not wandering around, and that the route of his walking had a sense of
G purpose, the purpose of guiding the 1st Defendant to the vicinity of the G
Scene.
H H
I 27. The Court is also of the view that by alighting in the vicinity I
but not yet on the street of the Scene, and the U-turn on Ice House Street
J J
after walking for 3 minutes simply prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
K 1st and 2nd Defendants were to alight some distance away from the Scene, K
and that the 2nd Defendant shall guide the 1st Defendant to the direction of
L L
the Scene from the back, and for the 2 nd Defendant to leave the 1st
M Defendant to deal with the claiming as driver of the Vehicle at a suitable M
time. As stated above, there is no other reasonable possibility that the 2 nd
N N
Defendant should return to Central and walk in the vicinity of the Scene
O again. O
P P
28. I am also satisfied that the actions and conduct of the
Q Defendants had the manifest tendency to pervert the course of public Q
justice. I am satisfied that the 2nd Defendant, together with the other
R R
Defendants, intended the actions and conduct of the Defendants to have the
S tendency to pervert the course of public justice, i.e. to allow the 3rd S
Defendant to escape sanction for his criminal behaviour which includes the
T T
dangerous driving which caused the accident.
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
C 29. I am therefore of the view that the Prosecution has proved all C
nd
elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The 2 Defendant is
D D
therefore convicted.
E E
F F
G ( Peony Wong ) G
Deputy District Judge
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