A A
B B
DCCC 655/2024
C [2025] HKDC 605 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 655 OF 2024
F F
G G
---------------------------
H HKSAR H
v
I I
CHAN ON SANG
J ---------------------------- J
K K
Before: HH Judge E Lin
L Date: 3 April 2025 L
Present: Ms Yanky S Y Lam, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
M M
Ms Yasmine Zahir, instructed by Ivan Tang & Co, assigned
N N
by DLA, for the defendant
O
Offence: [1] Dangerous driving（危險駕駛） O
[2] Possession of dutiable goods（管有應課稅貨品）
P P
Q ----------------------------------------- Q
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
R R
-----------------------------------------
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The defendant Chan On Sang is convicted, on his own plea
C and admission of facts, of one count of “dangerous driving”, contrary to C
section 37 of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374, and one count of
D D
“possession of dutiable goods”, contrary to sections 17(6) and 46(3) of the
E Dutiable Commodities Ordinance, Cap 109. E
F F
The Facts
G G
2. At about 7 pm on 26 August 2023, the defendant’s vehicle was
H H
stopped by the police officers at Water Street near Connaught Road West.
I In the course of enquiries, the defendant suddenly drove off, causing the I
right rear-view mirror of the car to brush against the police officer. To
J J
avoid injury, the police officer had to dodge and suffered injury to his left
K ankle as a result. The defendant then accelerated, jumped the red lights to K
drive past Connaught Road West and Water Street to head towards the
L L
West Harbour Tunnel. The police officers boarded their vehicle, turned on
M its siren and gave chase. M
N N
3. Inside the tunnel, the defendant crossed double white line
O multiple times and cut into lanes of other vehicles. He also drove at a high O
speed of up to 140 kilometres per hour where the legal limit was 80
P P
kilometres.
Q Q
4. After coming out of the tunnel, the defendant drove along Yau
R R
Ma Tei Interchange and West Kowloon Highway Northbound at a speed
S of 190 kilometres per hour where the speed limit was 100 kilometres. S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
5. The defendant proceeded to drive along Tsing Sha Highway
C Westbound at a speed of 180 kilometres per hour where the speed limit was C
80 kilometres. He then crossed double white lines and drove on Container
D D
Port Road South, made a U-turn at the roundabout at Container Terminal
E 8, passed the roundabout at Container Terminal 7, then drove north on E
Container Port Road South against the correct traffic direction and in
F F
violation of an No Entry sign, at a speed reaching 100 kilometres per hour.
G There the speed limit was 70 kilometres. G
H H
6. After passing the roundabout at Container Terminal 6, the
I defendant moved back to the northbound lane of Container Port Road I
South, passed the roundabout at Container Terminal 5 and Container
J J
Terminal 4, this time at a speed of about 130 kilometres.
K K
7. At the roundabout at Container Terminal 2, the defendant
L L
made a U-turn, headed back towards Container Terminal 3. Finally, he
M stopped at Container Port Road South, alighted the vehicle and fled. M
N N
8. At about 1917 hour the defendant was intercepted by police
O officers at Kwai Chung Road. The pursuit lasted for about seven minutes O
over a distance of 13 kilometres.
P P
Q 9. By ignoring the police order and driving off, causing injury to Q
the police officer; jumping the red lights; and having no regard for the
R R
safety of other road users by driving at an excessive speed, the defendant
S had driven dangerously. In the process he also crossed double white lines S
and cut into the lanes of other vehicles multiple times and drove in the
T T
wrong direction and in violation of the road sign of no entry.
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
C 10. Subsequently the police found in the defendant’s vehicle four C
carton boxes containing 26,560 cigarettes (in 2,648 packets) with no health
D D
warnings on the packets. He was therefore charged with an additional
E count of possession of dutiable connedile. E
F F
Sentencing Discussions
G G
11. The maximum sentence for dangerous driving is 3 years’
H H
imprisonment. There are no clear sentencing guidelines. The law had been
I amended in 2010, the legislators, obviously considering the offence of I
dangerous driving a very serious offence, increased the maximum sentence
J J
to the offence. As pointed out by the editors of Cross and Cheung’s
K Sentencing in Hong Kong, (at page 912), substantial terms of K
imprisonment are not uncommon in more serious cases. The relevant
L L
considerators for sentencing are the culpability of the drives and the
M consequences of driving. M
N N
12. The chase lasted seven minutes, during which the defendant
O drove in excess of the legal limits, ignoring the police in pursuit. In O
addition, when the police stopped the defendant and was carrying out
P P
inquiries, the defendant, in blatant disregard for the safety of the others,
Q suddenly drove off, causing police injures to his ankle. The way the Q
defendant drove during the chase also showed blatant disregard for the
R R
safety of other users of the road while disregarding the traffic directions
S and road signs. S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
13. The facts are serious; the defendant having shown blatant
C disregard for the directions of the law enforcement officers, the rules of the C
road, the traffic signs and the legal limits imposed on various places during
D D
the chase. The chase lasted for seven minutes and over a distance of 13
E kilometres. A substantial sentence order is warranted in these E
circumstances.
F F
G 14. Having regard to overall situation, I adopt 27 months as a G
starting point for the first offence. In addition, the defendant is to be
H H
disqualified for 3 years, counting with effect from the date he is released
I from prison. I
J J
15. For the offence of dutiable goods again, there is no clear
K sentencing guideline, it should be dependent on the quantity of the K
cigarettes in question. As the defendant has already been sentenced to 27
L L
months’ imprisonment for the first court, I will adopt 6 months’
M imprisonment for the 2nd count. M
N N
16. Since they are separate offences, I order them to run
O consecutively, making a total of 33 months. O
P P
Other Considerations
Q Q
17. The defendant is 26 years old, Secondary school educated. He
R R
has a construction worker, making about $15,000 a month. He lives with
S his parents. His mother is working in a restaurant, his father, for health S
reasons has to stay at home.
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
18. The defendant has a number of previous convictions, most of
C which drug-related. From 2024, he was found guilty of a number of road C
traffic ordinance-related offences, and had been fined, disqualified, and
D D
sentenced to a short-term imprisonment. In 2023 he had three fixed penalty
E convictions, all related to manner of driving. E
F F
19. On the date of the offence for the present case, he was a
G recidivist in driving offences and cannot expect the court’s indulgence for G
additional leniency.
H H
I 20. From his background, his letter for leniency letter of I
mitigation and submissions by counsel, I do not find any mitigating factor
J J
in his favour.
K K
21. The only valid mitigation is his plea of guilty. In accordance
L L
to the direction of the High Court, I order the sentence order he reduced to
M 22 months. He is also disqualified for 3 years. The defendant is hereby M
reminded that he has to arrange to attend a mandatory drive improvement
N N
course after his release. It is his duty to arrange for attending the drive
O improvement course, if he fails to do that, he may be charged with another O
offence.
P P
Q Q
R R
( E Lin )
S District Judge S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 655/2024
C [2025] HKDC 605 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 655 OF 2024
F F
G G
---------------------------
H HKSAR H
v
I I
CHAN ON SANG
J ---------------------------- J
K K
Before: HH Judge E Lin
L Date: 3 April 2025 L
Present: Ms Yanky S Y Lam, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
M M
Ms Yasmine Zahir, instructed by Ivan Tang & Co, assigned
N N
by DLA, for the defendant
O
Offence: [1] Dangerous driving（危險駕駛） O
[2] Possession of dutiable goods（管有應課稅貨品）
P P
Q ----------------------------------------- Q
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
R R
-----------------------------------------
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The defendant Chan On Sang is convicted, on his own plea
C and admission of facts, of one count of “dangerous driving”, contrary to C
section 37 of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374, and one count of
D D
“possession of dutiable goods”, contrary to sections 17(6) and 46(3) of the
E Dutiable Commodities Ordinance, Cap 109. E
F F
The Facts
G G
2. At about 7 pm on 26 August 2023, the defendant’s vehicle was
H H
stopped by the police officers at Water Street near Connaught Road West.
I In the course of enquiries, the defendant suddenly drove off, causing the I
right rear-view mirror of the car to brush against the police officer. To
J J
avoid injury, the police officer had to dodge and suffered injury to his left
K ankle as a result. The defendant then accelerated, jumped the red lights to K
drive past Connaught Road West and Water Street to head towards the
L L
West Harbour Tunnel. The police officers boarded their vehicle, turned on
M its siren and gave chase. M
N N
3. Inside the tunnel, the defendant crossed double white line
O multiple times and cut into lanes of other vehicles. He also drove at a high O
speed of up to 140 kilometres per hour where the legal limit was 80
P P
kilometres.
Q Q
4. After coming out of the tunnel, the defendant drove along Yau
R R
Ma Tei Interchange and West Kowloon Highway Northbound at a speed
S of 190 kilometres per hour where the speed limit was 100 kilometres. S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
5. The defendant proceeded to drive along Tsing Sha Highway
C Westbound at a speed of 180 kilometres per hour where the speed limit was C
80 kilometres. He then crossed double white lines and drove on Container
D D
Port Road South, made a U-turn at the roundabout at Container Terminal
E 8, passed the roundabout at Container Terminal 7, then drove north on E
Container Port Road South against the correct traffic direction and in
F F
violation of an No Entry sign, at a speed reaching 100 kilometres per hour.
G There the speed limit was 70 kilometres. G
H H
6. After passing the roundabout at Container Terminal 6, the
I defendant moved back to the northbound lane of Container Port Road I
South, passed the roundabout at Container Terminal 5 and Container
J J
Terminal 4, this time at a speed of about 130 kilometres.
K K
7. At the roundabout at Container Terminal 2, the defendant
L L
made a U-turn, headed back towards Container Terminal 3. Finally, he
M stopped at Container Port Road South, alighted the vehicle and fled. M
N N
8. At about 1917 hour the defendant was intercepted by police
O officers at Kwai Chung Road. The pursuit lasted for about seven minutes O
over a distance of 13 kilometres.
P P
Q 9. By ignoring the police order and driving off, causing injury to Q
the police officer; jumping the red lights; and having no regard for the
R R
safety of other road users by driving at an excessive speed, the defendant
S had driven dangerously. In the process he also crossed double white lines S
and cut into the lanes of other vehicles multiple times and drove in the
T T
wrong direction and in violation of the road sign of no entry.
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
C 10. Subsequently the police found in the defendant’s vehicle four C
carton boxes containing 26,560 cigarettes (in 2,648 packets) with no health
D D
warnings on the packets. He was therefore charged with an additional
E count of possession of dutiable connedile. E
F F
Sentencing Discussions
G G
11. The maximum sentence for dangerous driving is 3 years’
H H
imprisonment. There are no clear sentencing guidelines. The law had been
I amended in 2010, the legislators, obviously considering the offence of I
dangerous driving a very serious offence, increased the maximum sentence
J J
to the offence. As pointed out by the editors of Cross and Cheung’s
K Sentencing in Hong Kong, (at page 912), substantial terms of K
imprisonment are not uncommon in more serious cases. The relevant
L L
considerators for sentencing are the culpability of the drives and the
M consequences of driving. M
N N
12. The chase lasted seven minutes, during which the defendant
O drove in excess of the legal limits, ignoring the police in pursuit. In O
addition, when the police stopped the defendant and was carrying out
P P
inquiries, the defendant, in blatant disregard for the safety of the others,
Q suddenly drove off, causing police injures to his ankle. The way the Q
defendant drove during the chase also showed blatant disregard for the
R R
safety of other users of the road while disregarding the traffic directions
S and road signs. S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
13. The facts are serious; the defendant having shown blatant
C disregard for the directions of the law enforcement officers, the rules of the C
road, the traffic signs and the legal limits imposed on various places during
D D
the chase. The chase lasted for seven minutes and over a distance of 13
E kilometres. A substantial sentence order is warranted in these E
circumstances.
F F
G 14. Having regard to overall situation, I adopt 27 months as a G
starting point for the first offence. In addition, the defendant is to be
H H
disqualified for 3 years, counting with effect from the date he is released
I from prison. I
J J
15. For the offence of dutiable goods again, there is no clear
K sentencing guideline, it should be dependent on the quantity of the K
cigarettes in question. As the defendant has already been sentenced to 27
L L
months’ imprisonment for the first court, I will adopt 6 months’
M imprisonment for the 2nd count. M
N N
16. Since they are separate offences, I order them to run
O consecutively, making a total of 33 months. O
P P
Other Considerations
Q Q
17. The defendant is 26 years old, Secondary school educated. He
R R
has a construction worker, making about $15,000 a month. He lives with
S his parents. His mother is working in a restaurant, his father, for health S
reasons has to stay at home.
T T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
18. The defendant has a number of previous convictions, most of
C which drug-related. From 2024, he was found guilty of a number of road C
traffic ordinance-related offences, and had been fined, disqualified, and
D D
sentenced to a short-term imprisonment. In 2023 he had three fixed penalty
E convictions, all related to manner of driving. E
F F
19. On the date of the offence for the present case, he was a
G recidivist in driving offences and cannot expect the court’s indulgence for G
additional leniency.
H H
I 20. From his background, his letter for leniency letter of I
mitigation and submissions by counsel, I do not find any mitigating factor
J J
in his favour.
K K
21. The only valid mitigation is his plea of guilty. In accordance
L L
to the direction of the High Court, I order the sentence order he reduced to
M 22 months. He is also disqualified for 3 years. The defendant is hereby M
reminded that he has to arrange to attend a mandatory drive improvement
N N
course after his release. It is his duty to arrange for attending the drive
O improvement course, if he fails to do that, he may be charged with another O
offence.
P P
Q Q
R R
( E Lin )
S District Judge S
T T
U U
V V