區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Bina Chainrai23/9/2016
DCCC649/2016
A A
B DCCC 649/2016 B
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION D
CRIMINAL CASE NO 649 OF 2016
E E
-----------------
F HKSAR F
v
G G
CHUNG Ho-yin
H ----------------- H
I I
Before : Deputy District Judge Bina Chainrai in Court
J Date of Sentence : 23th September 2016 at 2:43 p.m. J
Present : Mr. Joe HUI, Public Prosector, for HKSAR /
K K
Director of Public Prosecutions
L Ms. HUNG Yuk-kwan of Messrs. Stevenson Wong L
& Co. (D.L.A.) for the Defendant
M M
Offences : (1) Dangerous driving
N (2) Resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty N
(3) Possession of a dangerous drug
O O
(4) Possession of poison
P (5) Driving while disqualified P
(6) Using a motor vehicle without third party insurance
Q Q
(7) Using a motor vehicle not designed and
R R
constructed that the driver while controlling the
S
vehicle can at all times have a full view of the road S
and traffic ahead of the vehicle
T T
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
-2-
A A
B B
-------------------------------------------
C REASONS FOR SENTENCE C
-------------------------------------------
D D
E E
1. The Defendant has pleaded guilty to a total of 7 charges on the
F F
indictment – count 1 of dangerous driving, contrary to Section 37(1) of the
G Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374, Count 2 of resisting a police officer in the G
due execution of his duty, contrary to Section 63 of the Police Force
H H
Ordinance, Cap. 232, Count 3 of possession of a dangerous drug, contrary to
I Section 8(1)(a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134, Count I
4 of possession of a poison included in Part 1 of the Poisons List, contrary to
J J
Sections 23(1), 33(1) and 34 of the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance, Cap.
K 138, Count 5 of driving while disqualified, contrary to Section 44(1)(b) of the K
Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374, Count 6 of using a motor vehicle without
L L
third party insurance, contrary to Sections 4(1) and (2)(a) of the Motor
M Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, Cap. 272 and Count 7 of M
using a motor vehicle not designed and constructed that the driver while
N N
controlling the vehicle can at all times have a full view of the road and traffic
O ahead of the vehicle contrary to Regulation 26(1)(b) and 121(1) of the Road O
Traffic (Construction and Maintenance of Vehicles) Regulations made under
P P
the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374.
Q Q
Facts
R R
S 2. At around 9.50 a.m. on 30 March, 2016, a police officer on S
motorcycle patrol saw a private car with registration number UA 1689
T T
making a U-turn across double white lines in Sycamore Street. The registered
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
-3-
A A
B B
owner of the vehicle at all material times was Cheng Man-ho. He confirmed
C he had sold and handed over the vehicle to the Defendant in late March, C
2016, after removing all his belongings from the said vehicle. The Defendant
D D
was the driver of the said vehicle at the material time, and the only one in the
E vehicle. The police officer stopped the vehicle and asked the Defendant to E
follow his police motorcycle to Prince Edward Road West. As he was riding
F F
his motorcycle, the police officer noticed that the private car was not
G following but instead had reversed and fled along the southbound lane of G
Sycamore Street. He immediately switched on the flashing lights on the
H H
police motorcycle and gave chase to the private car. The police officer on the
I police motorcycle followed the private car the Defendant was driving from I
Sycamore Street near Tai Kok Tsui all the way to Kwai Tsing Interchange in
J J
Kwai Chung and he repeatedly commanded the Defendant to stop the private
K car using the speaker of his motorcycle but was ignored by the Defendant. In K
the course of the chase, the Defendant drove through multiple red light
L L
signals. After reaching the Kwai Tsing Interchange via Tsuen Wan Road
M northbound, the Defendant drove the private car through another red light M
signal and drove onto Tsuen Wan Road southbound. The police officer
N N
continued to chase after the Defendant. Another police officer driving a
O police vehicle with registration mark AM 6911 was at the junction of Cheung O
Sha Wan Road and Butterfly Valley Road at about 10.02 a.m. and learnt that
P P
the Defendant in the private car UA 1689 had stopped at the junction before a
Q traffic light at the left 4th lane on Cheung Sha Wan Road eastbound with the Q
police officer on the motorcycle following the Defendant and there was
R R
traffic ahead. This police officer stopped the police vehicle AM 6911 across
S the left 3rd lane and the left 4th lane of the junction to block the path of UA S
1689. However, UA 1689 driven by the Defendant moved forward between
T T
rd th
the 3 and 4 lanes, the left side of UA 1689 bumped against a medium
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
-4-
A A
B B
goods vehicle NU 2292 stationary in the 3rd left lane and continued forward
C and crashed into the left front of AM 6911. The police officer in the police C
vehicle suffered from tenderness of the neck as a result of the collision and
D D
was given 2 days of sick leave.
E E
3. The Defendant driving UA 1689 continued along Cheung Sha
F F
Wan Road eastbound, chased by police vehicles. It drove through two more
G red lights on Cheung Sha Wan Road eastbound, and at 10.10 a.m. it turned G
into Cheung Wah Street against the flow of the traffic on that street – it took
H H
a sharp right turn and crashed into the metal railings at the junction of
I Cheung Sha Wan Road and Cheung Wah Street and finally came to a stop. I
This is Count 1.
J J
K 4. After UA 1689 came to a halt after it had crashed into the metal K
railings, the Defendant alighted from the driver’s seat of UA 1689 and ran
L L
into Cheung Wah Street, and was chased by SPC34336 on foot. At the
M junction of Fuk Wah Street and Cheung Wah Street, he held onto the M
Defendant on his arms from behind in an attempt to arrest the Defendant –
N N
the Defendant struggled and they both fell to the ground. The Defendant
O continued to push the police officer with his hands and continued to struggle. O
Two other police officers arrived and assisted him to subdue the Defendant.
P P
Because of the fall, SPC34336 suffered tenderness, abrasion and redness on
Q both knees and was given 3 days of sick leave. This is Count 2. Q
R R
5. After he was arrested and cautioned, a body search was
S conducted on the Defendant, and amongst other things, one tablet containing S
0.24 gramme of 3, 4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, commonly referred
T T
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
-5-
A A
B B
to as Ecstasy, was found in a yellow coin bog inside the brown messenger
C bag the Defendant was carrying. This is Count 3. C
D D
6. UA 1689 was subsequently searched and a foilpack containing 5
E tablets containing clozapine, a listed Part 1 Poison, was found in the ashtray E
of the private car. This is Count 4.
F F
G 7. The Defendant had been disqualified from holding or obtaining G
any driving licences at the material time when he was driving UA 1689. This
H H
is Count 5.
I I
8. As he was disqualified from driving, there was no valid third
J J
party insurance covering the Defendant when he was driving at the material
K time. This is Count 6. K
L L
9. UA 1689 was subsequently examined by a motor vehicle
M examiner and it was found that the upper edge of the windscreen was blanked M
off by a strip of sticker which was 200 millimetres in width and he opined
N N
that a driver controlling the said private car on a road could not have a full
O view of the road and traffic ahead of the private car. This is Count 7. O
P P
10. A sketch showing the final stopping position of UA 1689,
Q another sketch as well as three albums of photos were produced by agreement Q
for the Court’s viewing. The Government Chemist’s Certificate was also
R R
submitted. These were all admitted by the Defence.
S S
T T
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
-6-
A A
B B
11. I was satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the facts
C admitted by the Defendant supported the charges that he faced, and C
accordingly I convicted him of all the charges.
D D
E Previous Convictions E
F F
12. The Defendant’s criminal record dates back to 2001. He has 20
G previous convictions in 13 court appearances, including 11 dangerous drugs G
related offences, one of which was for trafficking in dangerous drugs in 2010.
H H
His most recent convictions on his criminal record were in 2015, in KCCC
I 4242/2014, when he was sentenced to the DATC for some charges and fined I
for some charges. 3 of the six charges he admitted in KCCC 4242/2014 are
J J
similar to some of the present charges. I had called for the file of KCCC
K 4242/2014 and have viewed it. He was sentenced on 27/3/2015. For the K
offence of dangerous driving, contrary to section 37 of the Road Traffic
L L
Ordinance, Cap. 374, he was sentenced to the DATC and disqualified from
M driving all classes of vehicles for 6 months and ordered to attend a driving M
improvement course, the disqualification order to continue until he had
N N
completed the driving improvement course. For the offence of using a motor
O vehicle on a road without third party insurance contrary to Section 4 of the O
Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, he was sentenced
P P
to the DATC and disqualified from driving all classes of vehicles for 12
Q months, and for the offence of possession of a dangerous drug contrary to Q
Section 8(1)(a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance he was sentenced
R R
to the DATC with conviction to be recorded. The disqualification period had
S just passed by the time of the present offences, but as the Defendant had not S
yet completed the driving improvement course, the disqualification order was
T T
still in effect at the time of the present offences.
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
-7-
A A
B B
C 13. In respect of his traffic record, his driving licence was first C
issued on 05/07/2005. There are three fixed penalties and four convictions.
D D
The four convictions on the traffic record are for KCCC 4242/2014 and are
E also reflected on his criminal record. E
F F
Antecedent Statement
G G
14. This disclosed that the Defendant was born in Hong Kong and
H H
is now aged 32 years. He has received education until Secondary 2 level. He
I worked as a transportation worker in 2016. He had been to the DATC I
between 27/3/2015 until 27/9/2015. He is a drug addict and consumed about
J J
0.5 gramme of ketamine twice a week. He is married and lives with his wife
K and three children. No issue was taken by the Defence on the contents of the K
Antecedent Statement.
L L
M Mitigation M
N N
15. Counsel submitted in mitigation that the Defendant was the sole
O breadwinner of his family. He was a full time delivery worker earning O
$10,000 a month. His father was aged 57 years and his mother 48 years, and
P P
both relied substantially on the Defendant for their daily living. The
Q Defendant gave $6,000 each month to his wife and $2,500 to his parents. He Q
had siblings but they mostly ignored the family. The Defendant took
R R
dangerous drugs to relieve the pressure he was under. He had been sentenced
S to the DATC in 2015 and was released from the DATC in September, 2015. S
After his arrest for the present incident, he had been recalled to the DATC
T T
and was released from the DATC on 1/8/2016. Counsel submitted that he
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
-8-
A A
B B
was no longer a drug dependant. The Defendant was determined to quit
C dangerous drugs. C
D D
16. It was further submitted that the Defendant loved to drive and
E had dreamed of having his own car. He had been saving money to buy a car. E
In 2014, his relationship with his wife and family was poor and his wife
F F
wanted a divorce. The Defendant was very stressed. But recently his wife had
G decided to give him another chance. G
H H
17. Counsel submitted that his conviction in 2015 for dangerous
I driving arose because of a quarrel he had had with a police officer who had I
asked to see his identity card – the Defendant had ‘naughtily’ turned around
J J
and driven off. Eventually he had been sent to the DATC by the magistrate
K for the offence and disqualified from driving for 12 months. The present K
offence was almost at the end of the disqualification period. I have looked at
L L
the file of KCCC 4242/2014. The facts that the Defendant had admitted
M when he admitted the offences are quite different from that submitted by M
Counsel. The disqualification orders that were made by the magistrate have
N N
been dealt with by me in paragraph 12 above – for the offence of dangerous
O driving, he was disqualified for 6 months and ordered to attend a driving O
improvement course. He was disqualified for 12 months for the offence of
P P
using a motor vehicle on a road without third party insurance.
Q 18. Counsel submitted that the Defendant had attended a driving Q
improvement course in January or February of 2016 so he could regain his
R R
driving licence upon completion of the disqualification period. But before he
S got back his driving licence, he saw on the internet an advertisement for the S
sale of a Mercedes – his dream car – and the price was within his budget. He
T T
used his savings and bought the car – UA 1689, the car he was driving at the
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
-9-
A A
B B
material time and which is depicted in photos 1 and 2 of Album 3 – on
C 29/3/2016. He paid for the car in full on 29/3/2016 and had arranged to C
meet the owner on 30/3/2016 at the Transport Department at Cheung Sha
D D
Wan. The Defendant had noticed a problem with the car battery and intended
E to take the car for a complete check at a garage before meeting the owner at E
the Transport Department. He took a risk to drive the car as he was almost at
F F
the end of the disqualification period, and it was a short distance from his
G home in Kwai Shing Estate to the garage in Sham Shui Po. He was G
intercepted by the police before he reached the garage – he was afraid and
H H
acted stupidly by trying to escape and was now very remorseful. She sought
I leniency on behalf of the Defendant. Ms. Hung also referred to various cases I
to assist the Court in passing the appropriate sentences for the different
J J
charges, but accepted that each case had to be viewed on its own facts. She
K suggested a starting point of 2 to 3 years as being appropriate and to bear in K
mind the totality principle of sentence and the proximity in time of the
L L
offences. She also submitted letters in mitigation from the Defendant’s
M family members. M
N N
19. The Prosecution submitted an authority, HKSAR v. Pang Ho-
O yin, CACC 284/2013 wherein the facts were similar to those herein. The O
Prosecution accepted that the charges the Appellant was convicted of differed
P P
from those herein, in particular that there was dangerous drugs found in the
Q Appellant’s urine when it was examined, but there was no evidence that the Q
Defendant herein had consumed any dangerous drugs prior to driving the
R R
vehicle. Ms. Hung for the Defendant also urged the Court the bear in mind
S that there was no evidence that the Defendant herein was driving under the S
influence of dangerous drugs.
T T
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
20. After hearing Counsel in mitigation, I adjourned the matter until
C 21st September, 2016, calling for a Background Report on the Defendant as C
well as the file of KCCC 4242/2014. When the matter resumed before me on
D D
21st September, 2016, the report and the file were both before me. The
E Defendant through his Counsel confirmed that he agreed with the contents of E
the Background Report. After hearing further mitigation, I adjourned the
F F
matter until today to deliver sentence.
G G
Sentencing Considerations
H H
I 21. Section 37(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374, provides I
that a person is liable to a fine at level 4, namely $25,000, and to
J J
imprisonment for 3 years. Section 37 also provides that the Court shall order
K the person to be disqualified for a period of not less than 2 years for a second K
or subsequent conviction, unless the Court for special reasons orders that the
L L
person be disqualified for a shorter period or that the person not be
M disqualified. The Court shall also order the person to undergo and complete a M
driving improvement course under Section 72A(1A) unless the Court for
N N
special reasons decides not to make such an order.
O O
22. A person convicted of an offence of resisting a police officer in
P P
the execution of his duty contrary to Section 63 of the Police Force
Q Ordinance, Cap. 232 is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $5,000 and Q
6 months’ imprisonment.
R R
S 23. For offences of possession of a dangerous drug, Section 8(2) of S
the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap, 134, provides that a person convicted
T T
on indictment is liable to a fine of $1,000,000 and subject to Section 54A, to
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
imprisonment for 7 years. Section 54A requires the Court, if the Court is
C considering imposing a sentence other than a non-custodial sentence, to C
consider a DATC Report before sentence unless the Defendant is convicted
D D
in the same proceedings of any other offence and is sentenced for that other
E offence to imprisonment for more than 9 months. E
F F
24. For offences of possession of poison included in Part 1 of the
G Poisons List, Section 34 of the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance, Cap. 138, G
provides that a person is liable on conviction to a fine at level 6, namely
H H
$100,000, and to imprisonment for 2 years.
I I
25. A person convicted of driving whilst disqualified is liable to a
J J
fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for 12 months. The Court shall order the
K person to be disqualified in the case of a first conviction for a period of not K
less than 12 months unless the Court for special reasons orders that the
L L
person be disqualified for a shorter period or that the person not be
M disqualified. The period of disqualification shall be in addition to any other M
period of disqualification ordered under any other provision of the Road
N N
Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374.
O O
26. For the offence of using a motor vehicle without third party
P P
insurance, the ordinance provides that a person is liable to a fine of $10,000
Q and to imprisonment for 12 months. The Court shall order the person to be Q
disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle for
R R
such period as the court may determine being not less than 12 months nor
S more than 3 years from the date of conviction unless the Court for special S
reasons orders that the person be disqualified for a shorter period or that the
T T
person not be disqualified.
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
C 27. In respect of Count 7, it is provided that any person convicted is C
liable to a fine of $10,000 and to imprisonment of 6 months.
D D
E 28. Most authorities on ‘dangerous driving’ deal with the more E
serious offence of ‘dangerous driving causing death’ or ‘dangerous driving
F F
causing grievous bodily harm’ under Sections 36 and 36A of the Road
G Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374. However, the definition of ‘dangerous driving’ G
in these sections as well as in Section 37(1) are identical and clearly, all three
H H
offences are referring to the same driving manner and are distinguished by
I the severity of their consequences. I
J J
29. There is no sentencing guideline for the offence of dangerous
K driving. Each case must be decided on its own facts. The Court of Appeal in K
SJ v Poon Wing Kay, [2007] 1 HKLRD 660, set out the relevant sentencing
L L
principles and the matters that a sentencing court must take into account
M when considering an appropriate sentence. The Court must look at the M
overall circumstances and the overall culpability of the offender. The
N N
sentencing principle is one of deterrence. The law imposes a standard on
O every driver to ensure that all road users who come into contact with motor O
vehicles are safe, be they drivers, passengers or pedestrians. This principle
P P
was repeated in SJ v. Lau Sin Ting, [2010] 5 HKLRD 318, where the Court of
Q Appeal said at paragraph 36 that each case is different and may vary greatly Q
in its circumstances and too formulaic an approach to sentence may result in
R R
injustice.
S S
30. Culpability and a selfish disregard for the safety of other road
T T
users are often dominating factors in considering the appropriate sentence.
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
The Court of Appeal has repeatedly said that there is no excuse for driving
C dangerously since it involves taking a risk whilst in control of a potential C
lethal machine (see SJ v Lam Siu Tong, [2009] 5 HKLRD 601).
D D
E 31. The aggravating feature in this case is that the Defendant drove E
dangerously to avoid apprehension – he was driving at a time when he did
F F
not hold a valid driving licence – he had been disqualified from driving all
G classes of vehicles until he had completed a driving improvement course. It G
was submitted by Defence Counsel that he had attended the course in January
H H
or February 2016, but had not yet retrieved his driving licence – the
I disqualification order was still in effect. He was driving without insurance – I
this put all other road users at risk. It was a prolonged, persistent and
J J
deliberate course of bad driving over a period of some 20 minutes – he was
K first seen by the police officer on his police motorcycle at 9.50 a.m. in K
Sycamore Street in Tai Kok Tsui – the Defendant drove through multiple red
L L
light signals during the chase although the police officer kept telling him to
M stop – he drove from Sycamore Street to the Kwai Tsing Interchange in Kwai M
Chung, and then went onto the Tsuen Wan Road, southbound, and finally
N N
came to a halt after the car had crashed into the metal railings at the junction
O of Cheung Sha Wan Road and Cheung Wah Street, and in the course of the O
chase, he had damaged 2 other vehicles, one of which was a police vehicle,
P P
resulting in a police officer sustaining neck tenderness due to the collision.
Q Driving as he did, the Defendant showed a selfish disregard for the safety of Q
other road users. In my view, it is the greatest good fortune that no one was
R R
injured more seriously, and the damage was not greater. Judging from the
S circumstances of the case, I have no doubt at all that the dangerous S
maneuvers were the result of the Defendant’s attempt to evade police
T T
investigation and thereby exposing his driving whilst disqualified, as well as
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
driving without third party insurance, and the illicit substances that were in
C his possession. C
D D
32. I have considered all that has been urged upon me in mitigation
E by Counsel on behalf of the Defendant, as well as the contents of the letters E
submitted and the contents of the Background Report. I have considered the
F F
cases submitted by Ms. Hung in mitigation. I note that the facts and the
G circumstances of the defendants therein differ from those in the case before G
me. In respect of the case of Pang Ho Yin, Patrick, supra, submitted by the
H H
Prosecution, I do bear in mind that the facts are different, in particular as the
I driver there was driving under the influence of drugs. In sentencing the I
Defendant, his greatest mitigation really are his pleas of guilty. There is little
J J
else of weight before me.
K K
33. Taking into account the circumstances of the offences, and the
L L
Defendant himself, I am satisfied that the only appropriate sentence is a
M custodial one. M
N N
34. In respect of Count 1, I take as a starting point 2 years’
O imprisonment (24 months). Giving him full credit for his plea of guilty, the O
Defendant is sentenced to 1 year and 4 months’ imprisonment (16 months).
P P
35. There is mandatory disqualification for dangerous driving unless
Q the Court for special reasons decides not to make such an order. No special Q
reasons have been put forward by Defence Counsel, nor do I see any in the
R R
mitigation put forward. I find no special reasons not to disqualify the
S Defendant. This is the Defendant’s second conviction for the offence of S
dangerous driving. I am satisfied taking into account the circumstances of
T T
the driving that a period of 3 years’ disqualification is appropriate. The
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
Defendant is disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for all
C classes of vehicles for a period of 3 years. C
D D
36. No special reasons have been put forward by Defence Counsel,
E nor do I see any, for not making a driving improvement course order. The E
Defendant is ordered to attend and complete a driving improvement course
F F
within the last 3 months’ of the disqualification period at his own cost, and
G the disqualification order will continue to run, until he completes his driving G
improvement course.
H H
I 37. In respect of Count 2, resisting a police officer in the execution I
of his duty, the ‘resisting’ was by way of a struggle, resulting in the
J J
Defendant and the police officer both falling to the ground, where the
K Defendant pushed the police officer with his hands and continued to struggle. K
The Defendant was subsequently subdued with the assistance of other police
L L
officers. SPC 34336 suffered from tenderness, abrasion and redness on both
M knees as a result of the fall and was given 3 days’ sick leave. The resistance M
by way of a struggle in my view is not the most serious, and the injuries
N N
sustained by the police office appear to be minor. However, there must be a
O deterrent element in the sentence. A proper starting point is 3 months’ O
imprisonment. Giving him full credit for his plea, he is sentenced to 2
P P
months’ imprisonment.
Q Q
38. In respect of Count 3, possession of a dangerous drug, Section
R R
54A does not apply. The appropriate staring point is 6 months’
S imprisonment, and giving him full credit for his plea, he is sentenced to 4 S
months’ imprisonment.
T T
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
39. In respect of Count 4, possession of poison included in Part 1 of
C the Poisons List, the appropriate staring point is 1 ½ months’ imprisonment. C
Giving him full credit for his plea, he is sentenced to 1 month’s
D D
imprisonment.
E E
40. In respect of Count 5, driving whilst disqualified, the appropriate
F F
starting point is 3 months’ imprisonment. Giving him full credit for his plea,
G the Defendant is sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment. On a first conviction, G
there is mandatory disqualification of 12 months unless the Court for special
H H
reasons orders that the person be disqualified for a shorter period or that the
I person not be disqualified. No special reasons have been put before me nor I
do I see any in the mitigation put forward. The Defendant is therefore
J J
disqualified for 12 months’, and this disqualification order is in addition to
K the disqualification of 3 years imposed in respect of Count 1. K
L L
41. Count 6 is using a motor vehicle without third party insurance.
M Driving without insurance places all other road users at risk should an M
accident occur. I am satisfied that the appropriate starting point is 6 months’
N N
imprisonment. Giving him full credit for his plea, the Defendant is sentenced
O to 4 months’ imprisonment. O
P P
42. By virtue of Section 4(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance
Q (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, unless the Court finds special reasons, there is Q
also mandatory disqualification for using a vehicle without third party
R R
insurance of not less than 12 months nor more than 36 months from the date
S of conviction. No special reasons have been put forward. I can find no S
special reasons not to disqualify the Defendant. This is the second occasion
T T
that the Defendant has been convicted of the offence of using a motor vehicle
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
- 17 -
A A
B B
without third party insurance. I am satisfied that a period of 18 months’
C disqualification is appropriate. The Defendant is disqualified from holding or C
obtaining a driving licence for all classes of vehicles for a period of 18
D D
months from today.
E E
43. For Count 7, the norm is a financial penalty. The Defendant is
F F
fined $750.
G G
44. Bearing in mind the principle of totality, I will order that the
H H
sentences in respect of Counts 1, 5 and 6 be served concurrently. The
I sentence in respect of Count 2 be served consecutively to that of Counts 1, 5 I
and 6. The sentence in respect of Counts 3 and 4 be served concurrently, but
J J
consecutively to the sentences imposed for Counts 1, 2, 5 and 6, making a
K total of 22 months’ imprisonment. I consider that this is sufficient to reflect K
the overall criminality of the Defendant’s conduct.
L L
M 45. The disqualification period in Count 1 and Count 6 are to be M
served concurrently, whilst that for Count 5 is consecutive to that of Count 1,
N N
making a total of 4 years disqualification.
O O
46. The Defendant must undergo and complete the driving
P P
improvement course in the last 3 months of the total disqualification period
Q of 4 years, and the disqualification order will continue to run until he Q
completes the driving improvement course.
R R
S S
T T
Bina Chainrai
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
- 18 -
A A
B B
Deputy District Judge
C C
Defendant warned of effect of disqualification and driving improvement
D D
course orders and consequences of breach thereof.
E E
F F
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
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
A A
B DCCC 649/2016 B
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION D
CRIMINAL CASE NO 649 OF 2016
E E
-----------------
F HKSAR F
v
G G
CHUNG Ho-yin
H ----------------- H
I I
Before : Deputy District Judge Bina Chainrai in Court
J Date of Sentence : 23th September 2016 at 2:43 p.m. J
Present : Mr. Joe HUI, Public Prosector, for HKSAR /
K K
Director of Public Prosecutions
L Ms. HUNG Yuk-kwan of Messrs. Stevenson Wong L
& Co. (D.L.A.) for the Defendant
M M
Offences : (1) Dangerous driving
N (2) Resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty N
(3) Possession of a dangerous drug
O O
(4) Possession of poison
P (5) Driving while disqualified P
(6) Using a motor vehicle without third party insurance
Q Q
(7) Using a motor vehicle not designed and
R R
constructed that the driver while controlling the
S
vehicle can at all times have a full view of the road S
and traffic ahead of the vehicle
T T
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
-2-
A A
B B
-------------------------------------------
C REASONS FOR SENTENCE C
-------------------------------------------
D D
E E
1. The Defendant has pleaded guilty to a total of 7 charges on the
F F
indictment – count 1 of dangerous driving, contrary to Section 37(1) of the
G Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374, Count 2 of resisting a police officer in the G
due execution of his duty, contrary to Section 63 of the Police Force
H H
Ordinance, Cap. 232, Count 3 of possession of a dangerous drug, contrary to
I Section 8(1)(a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134, Count I
4 of possession of a poison included in Part 1 of the Poisons List, contrary to
J J
Sections 23(1), 33(1) and 34 of the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance, Cap.
K 138, Count 5 of driving while disqualified, contrary to Section 44(1)(b) of the K
Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374, Count 6 of using a motor vehicle without
L L
third party insurance, contrary to Sections 4(1) and (2)(a) of the Motor
M Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, Cap. 272 and Count 7 of M
using a motor vehicle not designed and constructed that the driver while
N N
controlling the vehicle can at all times have a full view of the road and traffic
O ahead of the vehicle contrary to Regulation 26(1)(b) and 121(1) of the Road O
Traffic (Construction and Maintenance of Vehicles) Regulations made under
P P
the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374.
Q Q
Facts
R R
S 2. At around 9.50 a.m. on 30 March, 2016, a police officer on S
motorcycle patrol saw a private car with registration number UA 1689
T T
making a U-turn across double white lines in Sycamore Street. The registered
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
-3-
A A
B B
owner of the vehicle at all material times was Cheng Man-ho. He confirmed
C he had sold and handed over the vehicle to the Defendant in late March, C
2016, after removing all his belongings from the said vehicle. The Defendant
D D
was the driver of the said vehicle at the material time, and the only one in the
E vehicle. The police officer stopped the vehicle and asked the Defendant to E
follow his police motorcycle to Prince Edward Road West. As he was riding
F F
his motorcycle, the police officer noticed that the private car was not
G following but instead had reversed and fled along the southbound lane of G
Sycamore Street. He immediately switched on the flashing lights on the
H H
police motorcycle and gave chase to the private car. The police officer on the
I police motorcycle followed the private car the Defendant was driving from I
Sycamore Street near Tai Kok Tsui all the way to Kwai Tsing Interchange in
J J
Kwai Chung and he repeatedly commanded the Defendant to stop the private
K car using the speaker of his motorcycle but was ignored by the Defendant. In K
the course of the chase, the Defendant drove through multiple red light
L L
signals. After reaching the Kwai Tsing Interchange via Tsuen Wan Road
M northbound, the Defendant drove the private car through another red light M
signal and drove onto Tsuen Wan Road southbound. The police officer
N N
continued to chase after the Defendant. Another police officer driving a
O police vehicle with registration mark AM 6911 was at the junction of Cheung O
Sha Wan Road and Butterfly Valley Road at about 10.02 a.m. and learnt that
P P
the Defendant in the private car UA 1689 had stopped at the junction before a
Q traffic light at the left 4th lane on Cheung Sha Wan Road eastbound with the Q
police officer on the motorcycle following the Defendant and there was
R R
traffic ahead. This police officer stopped the police vehicle AM 6911 across
S the left 3rd lane and the left 4th lane of the junction to block the path of UA S
1689. However, UA 1689 driven by the Defendant moved forward between
T T
rd th
the 3 and 4 lanes, the left side of UA 1689 bumped against a medium
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
-4-
A A
B B
goods vehicle NU 2292 stationary in the 3rd left lane and continued forward
C and crashed into the left front of AM 6911. The police officer in the police C
vehicle suffered from tenderness of the neck as a result of the collision and
D D
was given 2 days of sick leave.
E E
3. The Defendant driving UA 1689 continued along Cheung Sha
F F
Wan Road eastbound, chased by police vehicles. It drove through two more
G red lights on Cheung Sha Wan Road eastbound, and at 10.10 a.m. it turned G
into Cheung Wah Street against the flow of the traffic on that street – it took
H H
a sharp right turn and crashed into the metal railings at the junction of
I Cheung Sha Wan Road and Cheung Wah Street and finally came to a stop. I
This is Count 1.
J J
K 4. After UA 1689 came to a halt after it had crashed into the metal K
railings, the Defendant alighted from the driver’s seat of UA 1689 and ran
L L
into Cheung Wah Street, and was chased by SPC34336 on foot. At the
M junction of Fuk Wah Street and Cheung Wah Street, he held onto the M
Defendant on his arms from behind in an attempt to arrest the Defendant –
N N
the Defendant struggled and they both fell to the ground. The Defendant
O continued to push the police officer with his hands and continued to struggle. O
Two other police officers arrived and assisted him to subdue the Defendant.
P P
Because of the fall, SPC34336 suffered tenderness, abrasion and redness on
Q both knees and was given 3 days of sick leave. This is Count 2. Q
R R
5. After he was arrested and cautioned, a body search was
S conducted on the Defendant, and amongst other things, one tablet containing S
0.24 gramme of 3, 4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, commonly referred
T T
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
-5-
A A
B B
to as Ecstasy, was found in a yellow coin bog inside the brown messenger
C bag the Defendant was carrying. This is Count 3. C
D D
6. UA 1689 was subsequently searched and a foilpack containing 5
E tablets containing clozapine, a listed Part 1 Poison, was found in the ashtray E
of the private car. This is Count 4.
F F
G 7. The Defendant had been disqualified from holding or obtaining G
any driving licences at the material time when he was driving UA 1689. This
H H
is Count 5.
I I
8. As he was disqualified from driving, there was no valid third
J J
party insurance covering the Defendant when he was driving at the material
K time. This is Count 6. K
L L
9. UA 1689 was subsequently examined by a motor vehicle
M examiner and it was found that the upper edge of the windscreen was blanked M
off by a strip of sticker which was 200 millimetres in width and he opined
N N
that a driver controlling the said private car on a road could not have a full
O view of the road and traffic ahead of the private car. This is Count 7. O
P P
10. A sketch showing the final stopping position of UA 1689,
Q another sketch as well as three albums of photos were produced by agreement Q
for the Court’s viewing. The Government Chemist’s Certificate was also
R R
submitted. These were all admitted by the Defence.
S S
T T
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
-6-
A A
B B
11. I was satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the facts
C admitted by the Defendant supported the charges that he faced, and C
accordingly I convicted him of all the charges.
D D
E Previous Convictions E
F F
12. The Defendant’s criminal record dates back to 2001. He has 20
G previous convictions in 13 court appearances, including 11 dangerous drugs G
related offences, one of which was for trafficking in dangerous drugs in 2010.
H H
His most recent convictions on his criminal record were in 2015, in KCCC
I 4242/2014, when he was sentenced to the DATC for some charges and fined I
for some charges. 3 of the six charges he admitted in KCCC 4242/2014 are
J J
similar to some of the present charges. I had called for the file of KCCC
K 4242/2014 and have viewed it. He was sentenced on 27/3/2015. For the K
offence of dangerous driving, contrary to section 37 of the Road Traffic
L L
Ordinance, Cap. 374, he was sentenced to the DATC and disqualified from
M driving all classes of vehicles for 6 months and ordered to attend a driving M
improvement course, the disqualification order to continue until he had
N N
completed the driving improvement course. For the offence of using a motor
O vehicle on a road without third party insurance contrary to Section 4 of the O
Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, he was sentenced
P P
to the DATC and disqualified from driving all classes of vehicles for 12
Q months, and for the offence of possession of a dangerous drug contrary to Q
Section 8(1)(a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance he was sentenced
R R
to the DATC with conviction to be recorded. The disqualification period had
S just passed by the time of the present offences, but as the Defendant had not S
yet completed the driving improvement course, the disqualification order was
T T
still in effect at the time of the present offences.
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
-7-
A A
B B
C 13. In respect of his traffic record, his driving licence was first C
issued on 05/07/2005. There are three fixed penalties and four convictions.
D D
The four convictions on the traffic record are for KCCC 4242/2014 and are
E also reflected on his criminal record. E
F F
Antecedent Statement
G G
14. This disclosed that the Defendant was born in Hong Kong and
H H
is now aged 32 years. He has received education until Secondary 2 level. He
I worked as a transportation worker in 2016. He had been to the DATC I
between 27/3/2015 until 27/9/2015. He is a drug addict and consumed about
J J
0.5 gramme of ketamine twice a week. He is married and lives with his wife
K and three children. No issue was taken by the Defence on the contents of the K
Antecedent Statement.
L L
M Mitigation M
N N
15. Counsel submitted in mitigation that the Defendant was the sole
O breadwinner of his family. He was a full time delivery worker earning O
$10,000 a month. His father was aged 57 years and his mother 48 years, and
P P
both relied substantially on the Defendant for their daily living. The
Q Defendant gave $6,000 each month to his wife and $2,500 to his parents. He Q
had siblings but they mostly ignored the family. The Defendant took
R R
dangerous drugs to relieve the pressure he was under. He had been sentenced
S to the DATC in 2015 and was released from the DATC in September, 2015. S
After his arrest for the present incident, he had been recalled to the DATC
T T
and was released from the DATC on 1/8/2016. Counsel submitted that he
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
-8-
A A
B B
was no longer a drug dependant. The Defendant was determined to quit
C dangerous drugs. C
D D
16. It was further submitted that the Defendant loved to drive and
E had dreamed of having his own car. He had been saving money to buy a car. E
In 2014, his relationship with his wife and family was poor and his wife
F F
wanted a divorce. The Defendant was very stressed. But recently his wife had
G decided to give him another chance. G
H H
17. Counsel submitted that his conviction in 2015 for dangerous
I driving arose because of a quarrel he had had with a police officer who had I
asked to see his identity card – the Defendant had ‘naughtily’ turned around
J J
and driven off. Eventually he had been sent to the DATC by the magistrate
K for the offence and disqualified from driving for 12 months. The present K
offence was almost at the end of the disqualification period. I have looked at
L L
the file of KCCC 4242/2014. The facts that the Defendant had admitted
M when he admitted the offences are quite different from that submitted by M
Counsel. The disqualification orders that were made by the magistrate have
N N
been dealt with by me in paragraph 12 above – for the offence of dangerous
O driving, he was disqualified for 6 months and ordered to attend a driving O
improvement course. He was disqualified for 12 months for the offence of
P P
using a motor vehicle on a road without third party insurance.
Q 18. Counsel submitted that the Defendant had attended a driving Q
improvement course in January or February of 2016 so he could regain his
R R
driving licence upon completion of the disqualification period. But before he
S got back his driving licence, he saw on the internet an advertisement for the S
sale of a Mercedes – his dream car – and the price was within his budget. He
T T
used his savings and bought the car – UA 1689, the car he was driving at the
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
-9-
A A
B B
material time and which is depicted in photos 1 and 2 of Album 3 – on
C 29/3/2016. He paid for the car in full on 29/3/2016 and had arranged to C
meet the owner on 30/3/2016 at the Transport Department at Cheung Sha
D D
Wan. The Defendant had noticed a problem with the car battery and intended
E to take the car for a complete check at a garage before meeting the owner at E
the Transport Department. He took a risk to drive the car as he was almost at
F F
the end of the disqualification period, and it was a short distance from his
G home in Kwai Shing Estate to the garage in Sham Shui Po. He was G
intercepted by the police before he reached the garage – he was afraid and
H H
acted stupidly by trying to escape and was now very remorseful. She sought
I leniency on behalf of the Defendant. Ms. Hung also referred to various cases I
to assist the Court in passing the appropriate sentences for the different
J J
charges, but accepted that each case had to be viewed on its own facts. She
K suggested a starting point of 2 to 3 years as being appropriate and to bear in K
mind the totality principle of sentence and the proximity in time of the
L L
offences. She also submitted letters in mitigation from the Defendant’s
M family members. M
N N
19. The Prosecution submitted an authority, HKSAR v. Pang Ho-
O yin, CACC 284/2013 wherein the facts were similar to those herein. The O
Prosecution accepted that the charges the Appellant was convicted of differed
P P
from those herein, in particular that there was dangerous drugs found in the
Q Appellant’s urine when it was examined, but there was no evidence that the Q
Defendant herein had consumed any dangerous drugs prior to driving the
R R
vehicle. Ms. Hung for the Defendant also urged the Court the bear in mind
S that there was no evidence that the Defendant herein was driving under the S
influence of dangerous drugs.
T T
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
20. After hearing Counsel in mitigation, I adjourned the matter until
C 21st September, 2016, calling for a Background Report on the Defendant as C
well as the file of KCCC 4242/2014. When the matter resumed before me on
D D
21st September, 2016, the report and the file were both before me. The
E Defendant through his Counsel confirmed that he agreed with the contents of E
the Background Report. After hearing further mitigation, I adjourned the
F F
matter until today to deliver sentence.
G G
Sentencing Considerations
H H
I 21. Section 37(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374, provides I
that a person is liable to a fine at level 4, namely $25,000, and to
J J
imprisonment for 3 years. Section 37 also provides that the Court shall order
K the person to be disqualified for a period of not less than 2 years for a second K
or subsequent conviction, unless the Court for special reasons orders that the
L L
person be disqualified for a shorter period or that the person not be
M disqualified. The Court shall also order the person to undergo and complete a M
driving improvement course under Section 72A(1A) unless the Court for
N N
special reasons decides not to make such an order.
O O
22. A person convicted of an offence of resisting a police officer in
P P
the execution of his duty contrary to Section 63 of the Police Force
Q Ordinance, Cap. 232 is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $5,000 and Q
6 months’ imprisonment.
R R
S 23. For offences of possession of a dangerous drug, Section 8(2) of S
the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap, 134, provides that a person convicted
T T
on indictment is liable to a fine of $1,000,000 and subject to Section 54A, to
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
imprisonment for 7 years. Section 54A requires the Court, if the Court is
C considering imposing a sentence other than a non-custodial sentence, to C
consider a DATC Report before sentence unless the Defendant is convicted
D D
in the same proceedings of any other offence and is sentenced for that other
E offence to imprisonment for more than 9 months. E
F F
24. For offences of possession of poison included in Part 1 of the
G Poisons List, Section 34 of the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance, Cap. 138, G
provides that a person is liable on conviction to a fine at level 6, namely
H H
$100,000, and to imprisonment for 2 years.
I I
25. A person convicted of driving whilst disqualified is liable to a
J J
fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for 12 months. The Court shall order the
K person to be disqualified in the case of a first conviction for a period of not K
less than 12 months unless the Court for special reasons orders that the
L L
person be disqualified for a shorter period or that the person not be
M disqualified. The period of disqualification shall be in addition to any other M
period of disqualification ordered under any other provision of the Road
N N
Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374.
O O
26. For the offence of using a motor vehicle without third party
P P
insurance, the ordinance provides that a person is liable to a fine of $10,000
Q and to imprisonment for 12 months. The Court shall order the person to be Q
disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence to drive a motor vehicle for
R R
such period as the court may determine being not less than 12 months nor
S more than 3 years from the date of conviction unless the Court for special S
reasons orders that the person be disqualified for a shorter period or that the
T T
person not be disqualified.
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
C 27. In respect of Count 7, it is provided that any person convicted is C
liable to a fine of $10,000 and to imprisonment of 6 months.
D D
E 28. Most authorities on ‘dangerous driving’ deal with the more E
serious offence of ‘dangerous driving causing death’ or ‘dangerous driving
F F
causing grievous bodily harm’ under Sections 36 and 36A of the Road
G Traffic Ordinance, Cap. 374. However, the definition of ‘dangerous driving’ G
in these sections as well as in Section 37(1) are identical and clearly, all three
H H
offences are referring to the same driving manner and are distinguished by
I the severity of their consequences. I
J J
29. There is no sentencing guideline for the offence of dangerous
K driving. Each case must be decided on its own facts. The Court of Appeal in K
SJ v Poon Wing Kay, [2007] 1 HKLRD 660, set out the relevant sentencing
L L
principles and the matters that a sentencing court must take into account
M when considering an appropriate sentence. The Court must look at the M
overall circumstances and the overall culpability of the offender. The
N N
sentencing principle is one of deterrence. The law imposes a standard on
O every driver to ensure that all road users who come into contact with motor O
vehicles are safe, be they drivers, passengers or pedestrians. This principle
P P
was repeated in SJ v. Lau Sin Ting, [2010] 5 HKLRD 318, where the Court of
Q Appeal said at paragraph 36 that each case is different and may vary greatly Q
in its circumstances and too formulaic an approach to sentence may result in
R R
injustice.
S S
30. Culpability and a selfish disregard for the safety of other road
T T
users are often dominating factors in considering the appropriate sentence.
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
The Court of Appeal has repeatedly said that there is no excuse for driving
C dangerously since it involves taking a risk whilst in control of a potential C
lethal machine (see SJ v Lam Siu Tong, [2009] 5 HKLRD 601).
D D
E 31. The aggravating feature in this case is that the Defendant drove E
dangerously to avoid apprehension – he was driving at a time when he did
F F
not hold a valid driving licence – he had been disqualified from driving all
G classes of vehicles until he had completed a driving improvement course. It G
was submitted by Defence Counsel that he had attended the course in January
H H
or February 2016, but had not yet retrieved his driving licence – the
I disqualification order was still in effect. He was driving without insurance – I
this put all other road users at risk. It was a prolonged, persistent and
J J
deliberate course of bad driving over a period of some 20 minutes – he was
K first seen by the police officer on his police motorcycle at 9.50 a.m. in K
Sycamore Street in Tai Kok Tsui – the Defendant drove through multiple red
L L
light signals during the chase although the police officer kept telling him to
M stop – he drove from Sycamore Street to the Kwai Tsing Interchange in Kwai M
Chung, and then went onto the Tsuen Wan Road, southbound, and finally
N N
came to a halt after the car had crashed into the metal railings at the junction
O of Cheung Sha Wan Road and Cheung Wah Street, and in the course of the O
chase, he had damaged 2 other vehicles, one of which was a police vehicle,
P P
resulting in a police officer sustaining neck tenderness due to the collision.
Q Driving as he did, the Defendant showed a selfish disregard for the safety of Q
other road users. In my view, it is the greatest good fortune that no one was
R R
injured more seriously, and the damage was not greater. Judging from the
S circumstances of the case, I have no doubt at all that the dangerous S
maneuvers were the result of the Defendant’s attempt to evade police
T T
investigation and thereby exposing his driving whilst disqualified, as well as
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
driving without third party insurance, and the illicit substances that were in
C his possession. C
D D
32. I have considered all that has been urged upon me in mitigation
E by Counsel on behalf of the Defendant, as well as the contents of the letters E
submitted and the contents of the Background Report. I have considered the
F F
cases submitted by Ms. Hung in mitigation. I note that the facts and the
G circumstances of the defendants therein differ from those in the case before G
me. In respect of the case of Pang Ho Yin, Patrick, supra, submitted by the
H H
Prosecution, I do bear in mind that the facts are different, in particular as the
I driver there was driving under the influence of drugs. In sentencing the I
Defendant, his greatest mitigation really are his pleas of guilty. There is little
J J
else of weight before me.
K K
33. Taking into account the circumstances of the offences, and the
L L
Defendant himself, I am satisfied that the only appropriate sentence is a
M custodial one. M
N N
34. In respect of Count 1, I take as a starting point 2 years’
O imprisonment (24 months). Giving him full credit for his plea of guilty, the O
Defendant is sentenced to 1 year and 4 months’ imprisonment (16 months).
P P
35. There is mandatory disqualification for dangerous driving unless
Q the Court for special reasons decides not to make such an order. No special Q
reasons have been put forward by Defence Counsel, nor do I see any in the
R R
mitigation put forward. I find no special reasons not to disqualify the
S Defendant. This is the Defendant’s second conviction for the offence of S
dangerous driving. I am satisfied taking into account the circumstances of
T T
the driving that a period of 3 years’ disqualification is appropriate. The
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
Defendant is disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for all
C classes of vehicles for a period of 3 years. C
D D
36. No special reasons have been put forward by Defence Counsel,
E nor do I see any, for not making a driving improvement course order. The E
Defendant is ordered to attend and complete a driving improvement course
F F
within the last 3 months’ of the disqualification period at his own cost, and
G the disqualification order will continue to run, until he completes his driving G
improvement course.
H H
I 37. In respect of Count 2, resisting a police officer in the execution I
of his duty, the ‘resisting’ was by way of a struggle, resulting in the
J J
Defendant and the police officer both falling to the ground, where the
K Defendant pushed the police officer with his hands and continued to struggle. K
The Defendant was subsequently subdued with the assistance of other police
L L
officers. SPC 34336 suffered from tenderness, abrasion and redness on both
M knees as a result of the fall and was given 3 days’ sick leave. The resistance M
by way of a struggle in my view is not the most serious, and the injuries
N N
sustained by the police office appear to be minor. However, there must be a
O deterrent element in the sentence. A proper starting point is 3 months’ O
imprisonment. Giving him full credit for his plea, he is sentenced to 2
P P
months’ imprisonment.
Q Q
38. In respect of Count 3, possession of a dangerous drug, Section
R R
54A does not apply. The appropriate staring point is 6 months’
S imprisonment, and giving him full credit for his plea, he is sentenced to 4 S
months’ imprisonment.
T T
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
39. In respect of Count 4, possession of poison included in Part 1 of
C the Poisons List, the appropriate staring point is 1 ½ months’ imprisonment. C
Giving him full credit for his plea, he is sentenced to 1 month’s
D D
imprisonment.
E E
40. In respect of Count 5, driving whilst disqualified, the appropriate
F F
starting point is 3 months’ imprisonment. Giving him full credit for his plea,
G the Defendant is sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment. On a first conviction, G
there is mandatory disqualification of 12 months unless the Court for special
H H
reasons orders that the person be disqualified for a shorter period or that the
I person not be disqualified. No special reasons have been put before me nor I
do I see any in the mitigation put forward. The Defendant is therefore
J J
disqualified for 12 months’, and this disqualification order is in addition to
K the disqualification of 3 years imposed in respect of Count 1. K
L L
41. Count 6 is using a motor vehicle without third party insurance.
M Driving without insurance places all other road users at risk should an M
accident occur. I am satisfied that the appropriate starting point is 6 months’
N N
imprisonment. Giving him full credit for his plea, the Defendant is sentenced
O to 4 months’ imprisonment. O
P P
42. By virtue of Section 4(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance
Q (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, unless the Court finds special reasons, there is Q
also mandatory disqualification for using a vehicle without third party
R R
insurance of not less than 12 months nor more than 36 months from the date
S of conviction. No special reasons have been put forward. I can find no S
special reasons not to disqualify the Defendant. This is the second occasion
T T
that the Defendant has been convicted of the offence of using a motor vehicle
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
- 17 -
A A
B B
without third party insurance. I am satisfied that a period of 18 months’
C disqualification is appropriate. The Defendant is disqualified from holding or C
obtaining a driving licence for all classes of vehicles for a period of 18
D D
months from today.
E E
43. For Count 7, the norm is a financial penalty. The Defendant is
F F
fined $750.
G G
44. Bearing in mind the principle of totality, I will order that the
H H
sentences in respect of Counts 1, 5 and 6 be served concurrently. The
I sentence in respect of Count 2 be served consecutively to that of Counts 1, 5 I
and 6. The sentence in respect of Counts 3 and 4 be served concurrently, but
J J
consecutively to the sentences imposed for Counts 1, 2, 5 and 6, making a
K total of 22 months’ imprisonment. I consider that this is sufficient to reflect K
the overall criminality of the Defendant’s conduct.
L L
M 45. The disqualification period in Count 1 and Count 6 are to be M
served concurrently, whilst that for Count 5 is consecutive to that of Count 1,
N N
making a total of 4 years disqualification.
O O
46. The Defendant must undergo and complete the driving
P P
improvement course in the last 3 months of the total disqualification period
Q of 4 years, and the disqualification order will continue to run until he Q
completes the driving improvement course.
R R
S S
T T
Bina Chainrai
U U
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V
- 18 -
A A
B B
Deputy District Judge
C C
Defendant warned of effect of disqualification and driving improvement
D D
course orders and consequences of breach thereof.
E E
F F
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
CRT20/23.9.2016/ DCCC 649/2016/Sentence
V V