區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Ivy Chui23/10/2025[2025] HKDC 1675
DCCC486/2024
A A
B B
DCCC 486/2024
C [2025] HKDC 1675 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 486 OF 2024
F F
G -------------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I TANG TAI WAI I
---------------------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Ivy Chui K
Date: 24 October 2025
L L
Present: Mr Laskey Edward F Le B, counsel-on-fiat, for HKSAR
M Mr Sadhwani Kamlesh Arjan, instructed by C&Y Lawyers, M
assigned by the Director for Legal Aid, for the Defendant
N N
Offence: Causing death by dangerous driving（危險駕駛引致他人死
O O
亡）
P P
----------------------------------------
Q Q
REASONS FOR VERDICT
R ---------------------------------------- R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
INTRODUCTION
C C
1. The Defendant pleaded not guilty to one charge of causing
D D
death by dangerous driving, contrary to section 36(1) of the Road Traffic
E Ordinance, Cap 374 (“RTO”) but admitted the lesser offence of careless E
driving at the outset of the proceedings. The lesser plea, however, was not
F F
accepted by the Prosecution and the trial proceeded as charged.
G G
THE PROSECUTION CASE
H H
I 2. A red public light Bus bearing registration mark UX7073 (the I
“Minibus”), driven by the defendant, collided with Mr Kwok Yuen Muk
J J
(the “Deceased”) on Ngau Tau Kok Road, Kowloon, at around 7:23 pm on
K 22 May 2023. K
L L
3. The location of the incident was near Lamppost No E7948,
M Ngau Tau Kok Road, Ngau Tau Kok, Kowloon (the “Location”). The M
incident took place on the eastbound lane of Ngau Tau Kok Road, which
N N
was a two-lane road emerging into one lane. The opposite lane, Ngau Tau
O O
Kok Road (westbound), was a one-lane road. At the Location, on both sides
P
of the road, there were pedestrian railings, save for an opening on the Ngau P
Tau Kok Road (eastbound) near the Location where there appeared to be
Q Q
Route No. 35 green public light bus stand1. Further, a short distance along
R
Ngau Tau Kok Road (westbound), there was also an opening with no R
S S
T T
1
See photographs marked exhibit P3(5), P5(3) and P5(4) and a sketch showing the location of incident
marked exhibit P6
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
pedestrian railings where there was a bus stop in front of Ngau Tau Kwok
C Road Playground2. C
D 4. At the time of the incident, the Deceased was crossing Ngau D
Tau Kok Road from the eastbound lane toward the westbound lane at a slow
E E
pace. Upon reaching the second left lane of the eastbound carriageway, the
F Minibus halted in that lane, which was not immediately adjacent to the F
pedestrian path, to let passengers alight. The Deceased was one to two
G G
meters in front of the Minibus, walking slowly toward the westbound lane.
H After the passengers got off, the defendant drove forward and collided with H
the Deceased.
I I
J 5. The Deceased suffered multiple severe injuries and died at J
2204 hours on 23 May 2023, the next day of the incident. He was 84 years
K K
old. Autopsy was conducted on the Deceased by Dr Jenny Lik Ka TSE (“Dr
L Tse”) who was PW4 in this case, opined that the direct cause of death was L
Multiple injuries due to road traffic accident (multiple rib fractures with
M M
intrapulmonary haemorrhage, pelvic fractures with retroperitoneal
N N
haemorrhage and skull fractures with subdural and subarachnoid
O
haemorrhage). Meanwhile, Dr Tse opined that “Coronary artery O
atherosclerosis” was also a significant condition contributing to the death
P P
but it was not related to the direct cause of death.
Q Q
6. At the material time, the weather was fine, the road was dry,
R R
the traffic was moderate, and the road was illuminated by streetlights.
S Mechanical examination found no defects in the Minibus. S
T T
2
See photographs marked exhibit P3(1), P3(10) and P5(4)
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
THE DEFENCE CASE
C C
7. Mr Sadhwani represented the defendant. It is uncontested that
D D
the defendant was driving the Minibus on Ngau Tau Kok Road (eastbound)
E at the material time, and that it struck the Deceased. E
F F
8. Nonetheless, the defendant denies the allegation of having
G halted the Minibus to allow passengers to disembark at the time of the G
incident. The defence asserts that the Deceased abruptly entered the second
H H
left lane from the first left lane of the eastbound carriageway, directly into
I the path of the Minibus driven by the defendant, who was consequently I
unable to stop in time, leading to the collision. The defence argues that the
J J
manner of his driving fell far below one of a competent and careful driver
K and denies that the Deceased's death was caused by injuries from the K
collision.
L L
M THE ISSUES M
N N
9. The main issues considered during the trial are as follows:-
O O
(a) Whether the Minibus driven by the defendant stopped
P P
to let passengers alight at the Location;
Q Q
(b) Whether the Deceased entered the roadway quickly or
R R
slowly;
S S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
(c) Whether the defendant’s driving, in the circumstances
C and evidence presented before the court, amounted to C
dangerous driving; and
D D
E (d) Whether the Deceased's death resulted from multiple E
injuries caused by the Minibus collision.
F F
G PROSECUTION EVIDENCE G
H H
10. The prosecution called four witnesses, Mr Cheung Tak Fai
I (PW1), Mr Mok Kang Lung (PW2), SPC54001 (PW3) and Dr Tse (PW4) I
who conducted autopsy on the Deceased on 12 June 2023.
J J
K 11. Facts have been admitted pursuant to section 65C of the K
Criminal Procedure Ordinance (“CPO”), Cap 2213 including production of
L L
a total of 39 photographs and a sketch showing the accident location 4 ;
M medical report of the injuries of the Deceased from A&E department of M
Queen Elizabeth Hospital (“QEH”)5; and medical report of the injuries of
N N
the Deceased from the Department of Surgery of QEH6.
O O
12. It was also admitted that between 2103 and 2306 hours on 22
P P
May 2023 a record of interview was given by the defendant under caution
Q at Kowloon Regional Headquarters 7 . The said record of interview was Q
produced as Exhibit P9 and P9A.
R R
S S
3
Exhibit P1
4
Exhibit P3(1)-(25) and exhibit P5(1)-(14)
T 5 T
Exhibit P7
6
Exhibit P8
7
Exhibit P9 and P9A
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
13. On 24 May 2023 between 1731 hours and 1808 hours,
C SPC4433 and PC14463, conducted a video record of interview (“VRI”) C
under caution with the defendant. The voluntariness of this VRI under
D D
caution was also admitted. It was accurately recorded on a disc, which was
E produced and marked as Exhibit P10 and P10A. It was also played and E
viewed in the court.
F F
G 14. Mr Sadhwani did not challenge that the answers in the record G
of interview and the subsequent VRI were given by the defendant
H H
voluntarily and the transcripts were accurate statements of his answers.
I I
15. The statement of Tam Kwan Ho (“Tam”) was admitted under
J J
section 65B of the CPO8. He was a Senior Ambulanceman and was in
K charge of ambulance A217 on the day of incident. Briefly stated, K
Ambulance A217 reached the traffic accident location at 1930 on 22 May
L L
2023. Tam found the injured person (the Deceased) lying in the eastbound
M lane of Ngau Tau Kok Road, about 1 metre from the Minibus's offside front. M
Tam found the eyes of the Deceased opened naturally, and he was rather
N N
confused, making unintelligible sounds, and was not responsive to
O questions. At that time, the Deceased was in a semi-conscious state. His O
left forehead had a laceration and haematoma of about 3 cm. Tam treated
P P
his wounds and stabilized his spine using a cervical collar and a head
Q immobilizer. Q
R R
ORAL TESTIMONY
S S
The evidence of PW1 (Cheung Tak Fai)
T T
8
Exhibit P16
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
C 16. PW1, 48 years old, is employed as a manager at a fire services C
company and possesses a driving license, with limited driving experience.
D D
He resides on Ngau Tau Kok Road and is acquainted with the location.
E E
17. At 7:00 pm on 22 May 2023, PW1 took the company shuttle
F F
from Kowloon Bay and got off at Pak Ling House, Ngau Tau Kok Road
G (eastbound). Around 7:20 pm, PW1 crossed to the westbound side, G
intending to catch a bus for dinner.
H H
18. When PW1 reached the pedestrian path on the opposite side,
I I
he observed an elderly man (later identified as the Deceased) in the
J eastbound lane, who also appeared to be preparing to cross towards the J
pedestrian path where PW1 was located. The Deceased was moving slowly,
K K
taking small steps that lasted approximately one to two seconds each. At
L that moment, the distance between PW1 and the Deceased was estimated L
to be about 8 to 10 meters.
M M
N 19. At that time, PW1 stood by the pedestrian railings and N
observed the Deceased, who was moving slowly in the middle of the road.
O O
PW1 noted the potential for an accident, as there was a risk of the Deceased
P being hit by a vehicle. During this period, PW1 saw several vehicles, P
including trucks and light goods vehicles, swerve into the opposite lane to
Q Q
avoid the Deceased. The Deceased continued to move forward at a slow
R pace, did not stop, and was not carrying any items. R
S S
20. At this moment, PW1 observed a red public light minibus,
T later identified as the one driven by the defendant, traveling along the T
eastbound lane and stopping approximately 1 to 2 meters from the Deceased
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
to allow passengers to alight. PW1 stated that the Minibus did not pull over
C next to the pedestrian path on the eastbound lane but rather stopped in the C
outer eastbound lane for passengers to disembark. PW1 said that the
D D
Minibus stopped in the outer lane to let passengers off. This may have been
E because a small private car was parked further ahead in the innermost lane, E
making it unnecessary for the Minibus to merge back into the outer lane
F F
after dropping off passengers.
G G
21. PW1 observed that after passengers got off the Minibus, it
H moved forward and struck the Deceased, who was crossing the road slowly. H
PW1 saw the front of the Minibus hit the Deceased but could not identify
I I
the exact point of impact. The Deceased fell to the ground upon impact.
J PW1 stated that no sound was observed and he was unable to determine the J
speed of the Minibus at that time.
K K
L 22. PW1 stated that the distance between the Minibus and himself L
was roughly equivalent to the width of two and a half traffic lanes,
M M
estimated at around seven to eight meters. He had an unobstructed view
N throughout the observation. Following the incident, PW1 called the police N
before leaving the scene.
O O
P 23. PW1 marked his observation position on Exhibit P11 with a P
red cross in a circle, indicating where he was watching the Deceased from
Q Q
the pedestrian railings on westbound lane at the time of the incident. He
R drew a triangle to represent the Deceased’s location before being struck by R
the Minibus and used an arrow to show the direction in which the Deceased
S S
was crossing the road. PW1 said before the Minibus appeared, the
T Deceased had almost walked to the middle of the two eastbound traffic T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
lanes. PW1 confirmed that exhibit P3(3) and P3(9) show the location where
C the Minibus stopped after colliding with the Deceased. C
D 24. During cross-examination, PW1 stated that it was already dark D
at the time of the incident. Although it was not as bright as during daylight
E E
hours, there was enough light at the scene for him to observe what
F happened. When he first saw the Deceased, they were approximately 8 to F
10 meters apart. A few vehicles passed in front of PW1 during this period,
G G
but traffic was not considered heavy. Thus, his view remained largely
H unobstructed. H
I I
25. PW1 said at the time of the incident, all vehicles, including the
J Minibus, had their headlights on, but PW1 could not distinguish whether J
they were on high or low beam. He did not check if the Deceased walked
K K
straight but observed that the Deceased moved forward slowly without
L changing direction. L
M M
26. PW1 stated that he remained on the pavement while observing
N N
the Deceased, primarily due to the risks associated with walking at a slow
O
pace on the road. He focused on the Deceased’s actions. The Deceased O
crossed the road without looking around and walked at a slow, steady pace,
P P
without accelerating or stopping. He could not recall the exact duration of
Q his observation but estimated it lasted slightly over a minute. PW1 admitted Q
that he did not consider helping the Deceased at that time.
R R
27. PW1 stated that only the small private car was stationary in the
S S
leftmost eastbound lane at the location, approximately 35 metres from his
T position. The small private car was parked at a greater distance from the T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
point of impact. PW1 indicated the position of the small private car on
C exhibit P13 using a red rectangle. C
D 28. PW1 did not observe any tall or large container trucks parked D
in the leftmost eastbound lane. PW1 denied that a large truck was travelling
E E
in that lane at the time of the incident. In response to the defence claim that
F the Deceased was crossing the road quickly, PW1 disagreed and affirmed F
that, based on his observation, the Deceased moved at a slow pace
G G
throughout.
H H
29. PW1 said he observed a female passenger, aged around 50 to
I I
60 years of age, get off the Minibus. The Minibus stopped for
J approximately 10 seconds to allow passengers to disembark. The defence J
asked how he could have seen a passenger getting off the minibus if he was
K K
continuously observing the Deceased. PW1 responded that while observing
L the passenger getting off, his attention was not solely on the Deceased; L
however, because the Minibus was near the Deceased, he was able to
M M
observe both simultaneously. PW1 further said that the Minibus had large
N N
windows, and the interior lights were on, providing sufficient lighting for
O
him to clearly observe the passenger alighting. O
P P
30. Under cross-examination, PW1 denied that no passengers got
Q off at the time of the incident. He also disagreed that the Minibus did not Q
stop to let passengers off at the Location. PW1 said that the Minibus halted
R R
and the passenger disembarked at the location indicated in exhibit D1(2),
S where the individual in green was positioned, which corresponds to the S
scene of the incident and not any other location (refer also to exhibit P5(4)).
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
31. During cross-examination, PW1 stated he was unable to verify
C whether the Minibus was traveling at approximately 10 km/h before the C
collision. He admitted, however, that his witness statement recorded the
D D
Minibus moving forward about 1.5 meters at roughly 10 km/h after
E dropping off a passenger, after which it struck the Deceased. E
F F
32. At that time, the Deceased was seen lying on the ground, still
G moving his limbs. Based on the angle of observation, PW1 was able to G
ascertain only that the front of the Minibus made contact with the Deceased.
H H
PW1 further estimated that approximately 11 to 12 seconds passed between
I the Minibus halting to allow a passenger to disembark and its subsequent I
movement forward.
J J
K 33. PW1 agreed that if the Deceased had not been knocked down K
and kept moving forward in a straight line without changing direction, he
L L
would have reached the pedestrian path with the railings without any open
M passage. M
N N
The evidence of PW2 (Mok Kang Lung)
O O
34. PW2, who is around 37 years old, has possessed a driver's
P P
license for a period of time. At approximately 7:23 pm on 22 May 2023,
Q he was driving his private vehicle with the registration XK8867. Upon Q
arriving at the intersection of Ngau Tau Kok Road and Elegance Road, he
R R
stopped at a red light. Once the traffic light turned green, he continued
S westbound on Ngau Tau Kok Road in the right lane, preparing to make a S
right turn at the upcoming traffic lights.
T T
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
35. While driving, PW2 observed an object ahead that was
C illuminated by headlights from behind. Upon approaching, PW2 identified C
the object as an elderly person (later identified to be the Deceased) standing
D D
in the eastbound lane opposite his direction of travel. In his recollection,
E the Deceased was wearing dark-colored clothing. He was standing about E
1.5 feet from the dividing line between the eastbound and westbound lanes.
F F
Simultaneously, PW2 observed a minibus (the one driven by the defendant)
G stopped in the second lane from the left on the eastbound side, near the G
dividing line separating the eastbound and westbound lanes, while PW2
H H
was traveling in the far right lane of the westbound carriageway.
I I
36. PW2 did not know why the Minibus stopped there. At that
J time, the deceased was standing in front of the Minibus. The Minibus J
suddenly began to move, resulting in its right front colliding with the right
K K
side of the Deceased. PW2 immediately turned left to avoid contact with
L the Deceased. As his vehicle continued forward, he was unable to observe L
subsequent events involving the Deceased following the impact with the
M M
Minibus. PW2 later went back to the location and informed the police about
N N
the events he observed.
O O
37. PW2 testified that, at the time of the incident, the Deceased
P P
was standing rather than walking or running. He also observed a stationary
Q tall container truck parked in the leftmost lane of the eastbound side near Q
the pedestrian path. He marked on exhibit P14 the position where he first
R R
saw the Deceased. At that time, the Deceased was standing to the right
S front of the Minibus, near the divider between the eastbound and westbound S
lanes, and was facing the westbound lane.
T T
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
38. During cross-examination, PW2 said when he first saw the
C Deceased, he was standing in the second lane from the left on the eastbound C
side and was not moving. From the moment he realized the object was
D D
actually the Deceased until his vehicle passed by him, the time was very
E short, only a few seconds. During these few seconds, PW2 observed that E
the Deceased remained standing. PW2 estimated the entire period to be no
F F
more than 10 seconds.
G G
39. PW2 stated that once he noticed the Deceased, he watched him
H H
closely without any visual obstruction. He saw the Deceased in front of the
I Minibus about five seconds before the collision. While observing the I
Deceased, PW2 was also paying attention to the traffic ahead and his
J J
vehicle’s speed.
K K
40. Under cross-examination, PW2 denied that the Deceased was
L L
walking quickly in the traffic lane before the collision, affirming instead
M that the Deceased remained stationary and did not exhibit any movement M
before the collision. PW2 confirmed in his witness statement to the police
N N
that the events transpired rapidly; he recalled only that the Deceased was
O dressed in a dark top, but could not recall the type of pants worn or whether O
any bags were carried. PW2 further reiterated that the whole incident
P P
happened very abruptly, lasting only a few seconds.
Q Q
41. PW2 said that at the time of the incident, there were streetlights
R R
on Ngau Tau Kok Road, and the vehicles traveling on the road, including
S PW2 and the Minibus, had their headlights on. There were no vehicles on S
the road with dazzling headlights at that time. PW2 agreed that the incident
T T
occurred at 7:20 pm, it was already dark and that he could not observe
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
objects at a greater distance. He disagreed that he had difficulty observing
C objects close to him, but agreed that visibility was not as clear as during C
daylight. He was able to simultaneously observe the actions of both the
D D
Minibus and the Deceased.
E E
42. PW2 stated that upon observation, he simultaneously noticed
F F
the Deceased, the minibus, and the tall container truck. The tall container
G truck was stationary, parked in the eastbound lane, to the left of the Minibus G
and parallel to it. He had already noticed its presence after passing the
H H
traffic lights the intersection of Ngau Tau Kok Road and Elegance Road,
I roughly about five seconds before the collision. PW2 denied that the tall I
container truck was moving, stating it was stationary but uncertain if its
J J
headlights were on.
K K
43. Under cross-examination, PW2 denied that the Deceased
L L
crossed in front of the moving tall container truck and subsequently entered
M the lane of the approaching Minibus, resulting in the collision. M
N N
The evidence of PW3 (Sergeant 54001)
O O
44. PW3 is Sergeant 54001. On 22 May 2023 at 7:24 pm, he
P P
received instructions from the control center to go to Ngau Tau Kok Road
Q to handle a suspected traffic accident in which a red minibus had struck a Q
pedestrian, causing injuries.
R R
S 45. PW3 arrived at the scene at around 7:33 pm, by which time the S
injured person (the Deceased) had already been placed in an ambulance for
T T
treatment. He observed damage and bloodstains on the right front of the
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
Minibus, giving him a reasonable ground to suspect that the Minibus driver
C had committed a criminal offence. C
D 46. Noticing there was no driver in the red minibus UX7073, PW3 D
asked at the scene who its driver was. The defendant then approached PW3,
E E
claiming to be the driver of the red minibus. Once the Minibus driver was
F identified, and prior to any further inquiry, the defendant promptly stated, F
“While driving toward Kwun Tong, I suddenly saw him appear in the middle
G G
of the road then the collision happened”. PW3 said he did not have the
H opportunity to caution the defendant. H
I I
The evidence of PW4 (Dr TSE)
J J
47. Basically, PW4 was tendered for cross-examination. She is a
K K
qualified pathologist currently working at Queen Elizabeth Hospital's
L Department of Pathology. On 12 June 2023, PW4 was working in that L
department. She confirmed that she wrote an autopsy report on 6 November
M M
9
2023 , which accurately recorded the autopsy she performed on the
N N
Deceased. Exhibit P15 is her report, later revised in wording by a senior
O
colleague without altering its meaning or PW4’s conclusion on the cause of O
death. She required time to prepare the report and followed several
P P
procedures, including examining pathological specimens under a
Q microscope. Q
R R
48. PW4 said the date of the Deceased’s death was 23 May 2023,
S but the autopsy was performed on 12 June 2023. When asked if conducting S
T T
9
Exhibit P15
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
the autopsy on the day of death would have changed the results, she stated
C she believed it would not have made a difference. C
D D
49. PW4 reported on page 2 that the abdominal aorta had severe
E atherosclerosis with calcification and ulceration. She confirmed these E
conditions can cause complications like stroke or heart attack, depending
F F
on the affected vessel’s location. PW4 stated that pre-existing heart disease
G in the Deceased could not be excluded, but there was no direct link between G
the abdominal aorta and the heart in this context.
H H
I 50. When questioned about the possibility of the Deceased I
experiencing a heart attack prior to sustaining injuries, PW4 stated that this
J J
could not be entirely excluded. Nevertheless, the autopsy findings and
K results from various pathological examinations did not provide any K
evidence indicating that the Deceased had suffered a myocardial infarction
L L
(heart attack).
M M
51. PW4 stated that “coronary artery atherosclerosis” was
N N
recorded under Roman numeral II below the immediate cause of death
O because there was 90% luminal stenosis in the left anterior descending O
artery at 0.5 cm away from its aortic origin for 0.5 cm. According to PW4,
P P
this condition affected the Deceased’s overall health but was not considered
Q an immediate or direct cause of death based on her autopsy findings. Q
R R
52. When asked about whether the injuries sustained by the
S Deceased would have been non-fatal for a healthy individual, PW4 S
indicated that it is not possible to generalize, making it difficult to provide
T T
a definitive answer. These injuries are considered severe and can
U U
V V
- 17 -
A A
B B
potentially be fatal. PW4 said that the age of the Deceased was also
C factored into the assessment. C
D D
Defendant’s Record of Interview
E E
53. On 22 May 2023 between 2103 and 2306 at Kowloon
F F
Regional Headquarters, the defendant was interviewed by PC5469. Under
G caution, the defendant made the following statements10:- G
H H
(1) At the time of the incident, he was driving the Minibus
I UX7073; I
J J
(2) The weather was gloomy, the road surface was dry, the
K streetlights were on, and there was heavy traffic with K
many vehicles11;
L L
M (3) The Minibus departed from Castle Peak Road in Cheung M
Sha Wan, with the destination being Yue Man Square in
N N
12
Kwun Tong ;
O O
P
(4) As he approached the scene of the incident, vehicles in P
the opposite lane had their high beams on, which
Q Q
affected his visibility13;
R R
S S
10
Exhibit P9 and 9A
T 11 T
Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 3
12
Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 4
13
Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 5
U U
V V
- 18 -
A A
B B
(5) He was driving in the fast lane of the eastbound Ngau
C Tau Kok Road, while a tall vehicle was traveling in front C
of him in the slow lane to his left. The Minibus was
D D
positioned behind about half the length of the tall
E vehicle14; E
F F
(6) He was traveling at around 20 something kilometers per
G hour when suddenly an elderly man ran out from the G
front of the vehicle in what he described as a suicidal
H H
manner15;
I I
(7) The elderly man ran very quickly, and the defendant had
J J
no way to avoid him16;
K K
(8) At that time, his speed was not fast. In fact, he had
L L
already slowed down considerably out of concern that
M someone might run out, but he had not expected it to M
actually happen17;
N N
O (9) At first, he thought he had hit an “object”, but later O
realized he had hit a person18;
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
14
Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 5
15
Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 5
T 16 T
Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 5
17
Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 5
18
Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 5
U U
V V
- 19 -
A A
B B
(10) When asked when he first saw the injured, he said he
C only realized the injured after getting out of the Minibus C
19
following the collision ;
D D
E (11) When he first saw the “object” it was about half a car E
length in front of the Minibus20;
F F
G (12) After dropping off passengers at Ngau Tau Kok Market, G
he did not make any further stops before collision21;
H H
I (13) There were around 8 to 10 passengers on board at the I
time of the accident22; and
J J
K (14) He suspected the elderly man committed suicide23. K
L L
Defendant’s VRI
M M
54. Later the VRI was conducted24. Under caution, the defendant
N N
said, inter alia, the following statements:-
O O
(1) At approximately 7:23 pm on 22 May 2023, at the
P P
location near lamp post E7948 on Ngau Tau Kok Road,
Q Kwun Tong, Kowloon, he was driving a red and yellow Q
public light bus with licence plate UX707325.
R R
19
S Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 6 S
20
Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 8
21
Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 9
22
Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 10
T 23 T
Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 15
24
Exhibit P10 and 10A
25
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 47
U U
V V
- 20 -
A A
B B
C (2) He has over thirty years of experience driving C
minibuses, and the vehicle he drove that day was
D D
mechanically sound and operating normally26.
E E
(3) He started work at 7:00 am, took a one-hour break from
F F
noon to 1:00 pm, and then continued driving until the
G end of his shift. That day, he completed about five to G
six trips. The incident occurred near the end of his
H H
workday27.
I I
(4) The route he drove started from Cheung Sha Wan
J J
Medical Bureau West Street, passed through Castle
K Peak Road, and ended at Grand Central and Yue Man K
Square, Kwun Tong28.
L L
M (5) Prior to the incident, he stopped to let passengers off M
near the intersection of Ngau Tau Kok Road and Ding
N N
On Street, then drove along Ngau Tau Kok Road toward
O Kwun Tong, passing the Kwun Tong MTR station and O
heading towards Yue Man Square. After letting
P P
passengers off, the journey was smooth with no further
Q stops; both road and weather conditions were good until Q
the place where the accident happened, where he
R R
29
stopped .
S S
26
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 57 to 60
T 27 T
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 89 to 122
28
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 123 to 132
29
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 177 to 198
U U
V V
- 21 -
A A
B B
C (6) He did not know the Deceased30. C
D D
(7) The road consisted of four lanes, with two lanes for each
E direction. He was driving in the lane designated for E
faster traffic. His visibility was limited by the tall truck
F F
ahead, which obstructed his view and hindered his
G ability to observe the Deceased abruptly entering the G
roadway. As a result, he could not stop the Minibus in
H H
time and unfortunately struck the Deceased. The tall
I truck was not parked in the slow lane but was traveling I
in the same direction as the Minibus. The tall truck was
J J
in the slow lane, slightly ahead and parallel to the
K Minibus while the defendant was in the fast lane. The K
Deceased suddenly ran from the front of the tall truck
L L
into the second lane, directly in front of his Minibus31.
M M
(8) The height and width of the tall truck were greater than
N N
the Minibus and completely blocked his view to the left
O front. The Deceased crossed in front of the tall truck O
and then dashed into the path of the Minibus, leaving
P P
32
him no time to react, resulting in the collision .
Q Q
(9) His speed was very slow, around twenty kilometers per
R R
hour, due to heavy traffic at the scene. He emphasized
S that even if he had not hit the Deceased, he might have S
T 30 T
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 133 to 134
31
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 136, 146 and 285
32
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 222 to 241
U U
V V
- 22 -
A A
B B
been struck by an oncoming vehicle. The defendant
C described the Deceased’s behaviour as a “suicidal dash” C
onto the road, as there was no way to reach the
D D
pedestrian path to the opposite side due to railings.
E Additionally, vehicles in the opposite lane had their E
headlights on, which affected the defendant’s
F F
visibility33.
G G
(10) He stressed that the Deceased suddenly and quickly
H H
dashed into the road, and even braking immediately
I could not avoid the collision. He believed his mental I
state was good and his reaction was reasonably quick at
J J
the time of the incident. There were no brake marks at
K the scene, indicating his speed was slow34. K
L L
(11) When asked about the position where he first saw the
M Deceased, he stated that the Deceased appeared on his M
left side, extremely close to the Minibus, leaving him
N N
with almost no time to react, even braking immediately
O could not prevent the collision. The Deceased suddenly O
and quickly dashed out from a gap in the roadside
P P
35
railings on the left side. The Deceased was in a hurry .
Q Q
R R
S S
T 33 T
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 136
34
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 138 to 142
35
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 149 to 168
U U
V V
- 23 -
A A
B B
(12) The Deceased rushed across the road with his head
C down, without looking left or right, in a manner C
described as “suicidal” . 36
D D
E (13) Despite the Deceased being about eighty years old, he E
crossed at a very fast pace. The defendant stressed that
F F
his view was blocked by the tall truck, and the distance
G was too close to stop in time 37. G
H H
(14) The defendant explained that he chose to drive in the
I fast lane for safety reasons and anticipated that someone I
might suddenly dash onto the road; therefore, he kept
J J
his speed at around twenty kilometers per hour, which
K was not fast. Nonetheless, the Deceased suddenly K
appeared, leaving him no time to react or brake,
L L
ultimately resulting in the collision 38.
M M
(15) When asked when he first saw the Deceased, the
N N
defendant said he only saw the Deceased when he hit
O him. The collision happened so suddenly that he could O
not react or brake in time. When he first saw the
P P
Deceased at the left front corner of the Minibus, he
Q initially thought it was an “object” before realizing it Q
was a person39.
R R
S S
36
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 266 to 277
T 37 T
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 145 to 168
38
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 293 to 295
39
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 309 to 312
U U
V V
- 24 -
A A
B B
(16) After the collision, the Minibus’s windshield shattered,
C and the glass fell to the ground. There were about eight C
40
to ten passengers still on board .
D D
E (17) The tall truck in the leftmost lane was traveling faster, E
while his own minibus was slower, following about half
F F
a vehicle length behind. If he had been driving parallel
G to the tall truck, the accident might not have occurred. G
Since the tall truck was in the slow lane, its driver is
H H
likely to have a clearer view of pedestrians, but his view
I in the fast lane was more obstructed, making it harder to I
see pedestrians crossing41.
J J
K (18) The lighting was adequate at the time, streetlights were K
reasonably bright, but the vehicles in the opposite lane
L L
had high beams on, which interfered with his visibility,
M though not severely42. M
N N
(19) The Deceased wore all-black clothing - long sleeves and
O black trousers. He had a medium-slim build, stood O
about 5 feet 7 or 8 inches (approximately 170-173 cm),
P P
43
and was taller than the defendant .
Q Q
R R
S S
40
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 202 to 204
T 41 T
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 285 to 291
42
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 242 to 245
43
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 246 to 265
U U
V V
- 25 -
A A
B B
HALF-WAY SUBMISSION
C C
55. At the close of the prosecution’s case, there was no half-way
D D
submission in respect of the charge, and I then found there was a prima
E facie case in respect of the charge against the defendant. E
F F
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
G G
56. As of his right, the defendant elected not to give evidence. Nor
H H
did he call any witness to testify on his behalf.
I I
GENERAL DIRECTIONS
J J
K 57. I remind myself that the prosecution has the duty to prove the K
elements of the charge against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt. The
L L
defendant has anything to prove. If the court is to draw any inferences
M adverse to the defendant, such inferences have to be the only reasonable M
inferences to be drawn from the evidence. The court must look at the
N N
circumstances of the case before deciding if an inference can be properly
O drawn. O
P P
58. The defendant elected not to give evidence and no witnesses
Q were called on his behalf. No adverse inference is drawn against the Q
defendant for remaining silent. That is his right. This proves nothing one
R R
way or the other.
S S
59. The defendant had given the cautioned statement and VRI, all
T T
of which have been adduced by way of admitted facts. The reply given by
U U
V V
- 26 -
A A
B B
the defendant under caution and the answers contained in his cautioned
C statement and VRI are “mixed statements”. Both the inculpatory and C
exculpatory parts of the interview are evidence for the purpose of
D D
determining where the truth lies44. It is trite law, however, that the court,
E as the tribunal of fact, is entitled to attach different weights to different parts E
of the defendant’s out of court statements45.
F F
G 60. Admitted in evidence is that the defendant has a clear criminal G
record. Therefore, I give myself the good character direction in favour of
H H
the defendant in relation to both propensity and credibility46, which means
I that he is less likely to commit an offence and is more credible in what he I
has said in the record of interview and VRI.
J J
K 61. Even though the defendant indicated before the trial that he K
was willing to plead guilty to careless driving, the court must still consider
L L
whether the prosecution’s evidence meets the required standard. I bear in
M mind that careless driving does not become dangerous driving simply M
because someone has been killed. It is necessary for the court to focus on
N N
the standard of the defendant’s driving and make an assessment as to
O whether it fell far below the standard which would be expected of a O
competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to such a driver that
P P
driving in that way would be dangerous.
Q Q
R R
S S
T 44 T
HKSAR v Yuen Man Tung [2004] 3 HKC 279
45
HKSAR v Huang Xiang Rong [2010] 1 HKLRD 750
46
Tang Siu Man v HKSAR (No 2) (1997-1998) 1 HKCFAR 107
U U
V V
- 27 -
A A
B B
THE LAW
C C
62. A person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if the way
D D
he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful
E driver; and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that E
driving in that way would be dangerous 47.
F F
G 63. Section 36(7) of RTO sets out the circumstances that should G
be taken into account in determining what would be expected of, or obvious
H H
to, a competent and careful driver in a particular case, regard shall be had
I to all the circumstances of the case including:- I
J J
(a) the nature, condition and use of the road concerned
K at the material time; K
L L
(b) the amount of traffic which is actually on the road
M concerned at the material time or which might M
reasonably be expected to be on the road concerned
N N
at the material time; and
O O
(c) the circumstances (including the physical condition
P P
of the accused) of which the accused could be
Q expected to be aware and any circumstances Q
(including the physical condition of the accused)
R R
shown to have been within the knowledge of the
S accused. S
T T
47
Section 36(4) of RTO
U U
V V
- 28 -
A A
B B
64. Whether a person’s way of driving is dangerous is a matter to
C be decided objectively, but the elements of the offence of dangerous driving C
do not include any specific intent to drive dangerously. Yeung VP, giving
D D
the judgment of the court in HKSAR v Lam Chi Fat, [2012] 1 HKLRD 968,
E said:- E
F F
“33. Dangerous driving is a conclusion which must be drawn
on the basis of the acts related to the way of driving. Evidence
G that supports the charge of dangerous driving may include: G
(1) Excessive speeding, particularly when it is
H raining and the road is slippery. H
I (2) Non-compliance with traffic signs, such as I
driving through a police road block; “jumping a red
light”; failure to stop in front of a “zebra crossing” to
J give way to pedestrians; ignoring pedestrian stud J
crossing and driving past at high speed; driving into a
K
“No entry” section of road; speeding at double white K
lines, etc.
L (3) Ignoring road safety regulations, such as L
intentionally driving a vehicle that is not maintained in
good condition; driving a goods vehicle that is greatly
M M
overloaded; going against traffic directions and driving a
heavy goods vehicle down a very steep slope illegal car
N racing, etc. N
(4) Disregarding the danger and going on driving,
O while knowing full well that one’s physical condition is O
not good and hence not suitable to drive, such as being
P under the influence of alcohol or drugs or being P
generally ill.
Q 34. Of course the above examples are just factors to be Q
considered in dealing with acts of dangerous driving and they by
no means represent an exhaustive list of all relevant factors.
R R
35. If the above or similar way of driving falls far below
S what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it S
would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving
in that way would be dangerous, then the driver concerned
T would be guilty of dangerous driving.” T
U U
V V
- 29 -
A A
B B
65. In deciding whether the defendant is guilty of dangerous
C driving, the court must base its consideration on his way of driving rather C
48
than the consequences of the accident .
D D
E EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE E
F F
66. I have carefully considered all the evidence and the
G submissions of Mr Sadhwani. The absence of reference to any specific G
piece of evidence or argument in my verdict should not be interpreted as an
H H
oversight or lack of consideration.
I I
67. In his written closing submissions, Mr. Sadhwani mainly
J J
criticized the testimony of PW1 and PW2 as follows: -
K K
(1) When PW1 was observing the Deceased from the
L L
pedestrian path on the westbound side, he was not
M facing the Deceased directly but looking at him at an M
angle. During this time, vehicles traveling on the
N N
westbound lane passed between PW1 and the Deceased.
O Therefore, PW1 did not have a clear and direct view of O
the accident, and thus his observations should not be
P P
given significant weight.
Q Q
(2) PW1 described the Deceased as taking small, slow steps
R R
before the accident, while PW2 stated that the Deceased
S stood still for about 10 seconds and did not move. S
T T
48
Paragraph 32 of Yeung VP in Lam Chi Fat
U U
V V
- 30 -
A A
B B
(3) PW1 did not notice a tall container truck in the inner
C lane near the Minibus, mentioning only a small C
stationary private car roughly 35 meters away.
D D
Conversely, PW2 was able to identify the said truck
E positioned beside the Minibus at the time of the E
Accident.
F F
G (4) While PW1 was paying attention to the movement of G
the Deceased, he was also observing passengers getting
H H
off the minibus. Therefore, there may be a certain
I degree of inaccuracy in his observations. I
J J
(5) As a driver, PW2 was focused on driving and paying
K attention to the traffic ahead, while also noticing the K
Deceased and the movement of the Minibus, as well as
L L
the tall container truck parked in the leftmost eastbound
M lane. Under these circumstances, it is possible that M
PW2’s observations became inaccurate.
N N
O (6) PW1 claimed to have seen the Minibus letting off a O
female passenger. However, according to PW2, the tall
P P
container truck was positioned in such a way that it
Q would have blocked the passenger door, making it Q
impossible for anyone to alight.
R R
S (7) At the time of the incident, it was already dark, which S
may have affected the reliability of observations made
T T
by both PW1 and PW2.
U U
V V
- 31 -
A A
B B
C 68. I have the advantage of seeing and hearing both PW1 and PW2 C
giving evidence in court, I do not find them to be evasive when answering
D D
questions. I am satisfied that they all gave an accurate account of their
E knowledge. They impressed me as a witness of the truth. I find their E
evidence credible, reliable, clear and straightforward.
F F
69. The defence argued that it was impossible for PW1 and PW2
G G
to observe different things at the same time, thereby questioning the
H accuracy of their observations. I do not agree. Given that the Deceased, the H
Minibus, the tall container truck, and the small private car were all in close
I I
proximity to one another, it is reasonable and plausible that both witnesses
J could have observed different things at the same time. J
K K
70. Mr. Sadhwani criticized that PW1 stated the Deceased was
L walking very slowly at the time of the incident, taking about one step every L
1 to 2 seconds, while PW2 said he observed the Deceased standing still.
M M
After careful consideration, I find there is no contradiction between their
N N
accounts. First of all, the times and distances referred to by both witnesses
O
were only approximate estimates. PW1 remained on the pedestrian path on O
the westbound side to observe the Deceased, concerning that walking
P P
slowly on the road could present safety risks. This consideration led him
Q to direct attention toward the Deceased. Therefore, I find PW1 was able to Q
clearly recount the Deceased’s every movement. Although there was traffic
R R
on Ngau Tau Kok Road during the observation period, I accept that his view
S was mostly unobstructed. S
T T
U U
V V
- 32 -
A A
B B
71. In contrast, PW2 only became aware of the situation when he
C was driving along the westbound lane of Ngau Tau Kok Road and noticed C
an “object” (the Deceased) ahead in his field of vision, prompting him to
D D
pay attention to the circumstances. At the time of the incident, PW2 was
E driving, so while observing the movements of the Deceased, he also had to E
pay attention to the traffic conditions ahead. It is worth noting that,
F F
according to PW2’s testimony, he only observed the Deceased for a few
G seconds, whereas PW1 observed him for at least one minute. It is G
understandable that PW2 believed the Deceased was standing still, since
H H
PW1 noted the Deceased was moving slowly and taking small steps lasting
I one to two seconds each. I
J J
72. The defence argued that PW1 observed a small private car
K stopped at the front of the leftmost eastbound lane, which PW2 did not K
mention. Conversely PW2 observed a tall container truck parked next to
L L
the defendant’s minibus, whereas PW1 did not notice its presence. I find
M this may be attributed to PW1 and PW2 having viewed the Deceased from M
different angles and each focusing on various surroundings. I am of the
N N
view that there is, in fact, no contradiction or unreasonable aspect in their
O testimony. O
P P
73. Although the incident happened at night, PW1 said that the
Q lighting was sufficient for him to see things clearly. When asked which Q
part of the minibus struck the Deceased, PW1 said that he could only
R R
confirm that it was the front of the minibus that struck him, but PW1 was
S unsure exactly which part of the front made contact. I find PW1 S
undoubtedly gave a truthful and accurate account to the court of what he
T T
saw and heard, without any speculation.
U U
V V
- 33 -
A A
B B
C 74. Despite the fact that both witnesses indicated that the lighting C
was less bright than daytime, there was no indication that it was completely
D D
dark or the visibility was seriously impaired for walking or driving. Even
E the defendant also stated in the VRI that the streetlights at the scene were E
sufficient49. I am sure that at the time of the incident, the streetlights were
F F
sufficient enough for both witnesses to clearly observe a relatively large red
G minibus stopped on the roadway. I accept PW1’s evidence that the Minibus G
stopped in the outer eastbound lane to allow passengers to alight and the
H H
interior lights of the Minibus were illuminated at the time.
I I
75. Overall, I come to the view that the testimony of PW1 and
J J
PW2 are mutually supportive and consistent, and I find their testimony to
K be straightforward and truthful, without exaggeration. Both witnesses, K
under cross-examination, unequivocally denied the defence allegations
L L
that:-
M M
(1) At the time of the incident, the Deceased was crossing
N N
the road at a rapid pace; and
O O
(2) The Minibus driven by the defendant was not stationary
P P
in the second lane from the left on the eastbound
Q carriageway of Ngau Tau Kok Road. Q
R R
76. Mr. Sadhwani further submitted that PW3 questioned the
S defendant at the scene without caution. I accept PW3’s testimony that, S
upon arriving at the location and discovering that there was no driver in the
T T
49
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 243
U U
V V
- 34 -
A A
B B
Minibus, it was necessary to first identify the Minibus driver at the scene.
C In response to PW3, the defendant stepped forward, identified himself as C
the Minibus driver, and said, “I suddenly saw him in the middle of the road,
D D
then the collision happened.”
E E
77. In fact, during cross-examination, Mr Sadhwani did not
F F
suggest to PW3 that the defendant's statement was made involuntarily, nor
G did he point out to PW3 that the defendant had never actually made such a G
statement. I am of the view that the defendant only provided a concise
H H
summary of the incident that aligned with the statements given in both his
I cautioned statement and VRI. I find nothing improper in PW3 giving I
evidence relating to the defendant's initial response at the scene to the court.
J J
K 78. Mr. Sadhwani also argued that even if the Deceased managed K
to cross the road, he could not have accessed the pedestrian path on the
L L
opposite side due to the presence of railings, and therefore should not have
M been on that section of the road. I do not agree. It is to be noted that the M
pedestrian paths on both sides of the road at the location of the incident
N N
were not fully enclosed, allowing pedestrians the possibility to access the
O pedestrian path. Exhibit P5 (2)-(5) shows that some traffic lanes on both O
sides are unfenced, leaving gaps where pedestrians can cross the road and
P P
reach the pedestrian path.
Q Q
79. I find that if the Deceased successfully crossed the road to the
R R
westbound lane, there was actually a gap near the railings close to the bus
S stop that enabled him to return to the pedestrian path. This situation was S
the same as that of PW1, who had previously taken the same crossing route,
T T
U U
V V
- 35 -
A A
B B
crossing Ngau Tau Kok Road from the eastbound to the westbound lane
C before observing the Deceased. C
D D
80. After carefully considering the assertions made by the
E defendant in both the cautioned interview record and VRI, I find that they E
were unreasonable, exaggerated, and illogical. My reasons are as follows:-
F F
G (1) At the beginning, the defendant believed he had collided G
with an “object” and only realized after getting out of
H H
the Minibus that he had struck a person. The defendant
I also claimed that the tall truck ahead on the left blocked I
his view. If that were the case, it would not be logical
J J
for him to have seen the Deceased rushing out from the
K gap at the left-side railing50. K
L (2) If he only realized after getting out of the Minibus that L
he had hit someone, it makes little sense that he could
M M
describe the Deceased’s actions in such specific details,
N N
such as crossing the road with his head lowered, not
O
looking to either side, and appearing to run into the O
51
roadway in a suicidal manner .
P P
(3) The defendant stated that there was a tall truck in the
Q Q
left lane, about half a vehicle length ahead on his left,
R moving faster than his Minibus. If this account is R
accurate, it would be expected that the tall truck rather
S S
T T
50
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 155 to 162
51
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 266 to 277
U U
V V
- 36 -
A A
B B
than the Minibus, would have been the first to collide
C with the Deceased. C
D D
(4) Due to heavy traffic and concerns about pedestrians
E suddenly crossing, the defendant said he deliberately E
reduced his speed to slightly more than 20 kilometers
F F
per hour at the time of the incident. If his account were
G true, the defendant should have been able to stop the G
Minibus in time, and theoretically would not have
H H
collided with the Deceased, or at most only caused a
I minor collision, rather than the severe damage to the I
right front windshield of the Minibus52.
J J
81. After carefully considered all the evidence before me, I find
K K
his accounts were inconsistent, lacked credibility, and defied logic. I attach
L full weight to the inculpatory parts of his cautioned record of interview and L
VRI and reject those exculpatory parts and attached no weight to them. His
M M
denial was unreasonable and illogical. In particular, I reject his assertion
N N
that he did not stop in the second left lane of the eastbound carriageway to
O
let passengers off. I also do not accept his assertion that the tall truck in the O
first left lane was moving rather than stationary, nor do I accept his assertion
P P
that the Deceased suddenly dashed toward the lane where the Minibus was
Q traveling. His version of events appears to be a fabrication designed to Q
conceal the fact that he was not paying attention to the traffic ahead, and he
R R
deliberately constructed a narrative portraying the Deceased as recklessly
S and suicidally running into the road. S
T T
52
See Exhibit P3 (9-10), P3(14), P3(16) and P5(14)
U U
V V
- 37 -
A A
B B
82. I am fully alive that even though that I do not accept the
C defence case, it does not mean that I have to accept the prosecution case. C
The prosecution still bears the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
D D
E MY FINDINGS E
F F
83. Having considered all the evidence adduced by the
G prosecution, I make, inter alia, the following findings of fact which I am G
satisfied beyond reasonable doubt:-
H H
I (1) At the time of the incident, the streetlights and all I
vehicle headlights, including those of the Minibus, were
J J
illuminated.
K K
(2) The eastbound carriageway originally consisted of two
L L
lanes. At the point of collision, the lane markings
M separating the first and second left lanes were no longer M
visible on the road surface. However, the carriageway at
N N
that location was still wide enough to allow two vehicles
O to pass through53. O
P P
(3) Not all sections along both the eastbound and
Q westbound sides of Ngau Tau Kok Road are fully Q
fenced; some areas do not have railings installed.
R R
Pedestrians can return to the pedestrian path from the
S roadway through these gaps. S
T T
53
See Exhibit P3 (1)-(3) and P5 (1)-(2)
U U
V V
- 38 -
A A
B B
(4) Before the Minibus arrived, the Deceased was already
C walking slowly along the eastbound lanes of Ngau Tau C
Kok Road, moving from the innermost left lane toward
D D
the pedestrian path on the opposite westbound lane.
E E
(5) There was a stationary tall container truck in the
F innermost left eastbound lane at the Location. F
G G
(6) There was also a small private car in the innermost
H
eastbound lane, which was parked further away from the H
point of impact.
I I
J (7) When the Deceased was slowly walking to the dividing J
line between the inner and outer lanes of the eastbound
K K
carriageway, the Minibus appeared and stopped in the
L outer eastbound lane, which is not the lane adjacent to L
the pedestrian path.
M M
N (8) After the Defendant stopped the Minibus, a female N
passenger was observed alighting from the Minibus
O O
while the Deceased was directly in front of the Minibus,
P slowly walking in the direction of the westbound lane. P
Q (9) The front of the Minibus was approximately 1 to 2 Q
meters away from the Deceased's right side.
R R
S (10) Approximately ten seconds passed between halting to S
allow passengers to disembark and restarting the
T T
Minibus.
U U
V V
- 39 -
A A
B B
C (11) After dropping off the passengers, the defendant C
immediately started driving forward. During this time,
D D
the front right side of the Minibus struck the right side
E of the Deceased, causing the Deceased to fall to the E
ground.
F F
G ASSESSMENT OF THE DEFENDANT’S DRIVING MANNER G
H H
84. In determining whether the defendant's manner of driving met
I the criteria for dangerous driving, consideration has been given to the fact I
that the Deceased was crossing the road slowly at a non-designated
J J
pedestrian crossing at the time of the incident. I firmly bear in mind that as
K a reasonable driver, he would have to try his best to pay attention to the K
road conditions, but that does not mean he has to always be prepared for
L L
pedestrians who might be crossing the road at the wrong places. A
M reasonable driver is also entitled to presume that the pedestrians would, for M
their own safety, not cross the road at unsuitable places and when it would
N N
be dangerous to do so54.
O O
85. With this factor considered, it is of my view that the
P P
defendant's overall manner of driving was dangerous, based on the
Q following reasons:- Q
R R
(1) The defendant has over 30 years of experience driving
S minibuses. He was the minibus driver on the section of S
T T
54
See Paragraph 27 of the judgment of Yeung VP in HKSAR v Yeung Yiu Kin 楊曜鍵, CACC 198/2016
U U
V V
- 40 -
A A
B B
road where the incident occurred. On the day of the
C incident, he had already completed about five or six C
round trips on that route. He ought to have been well
D D
acquainted with the minibus route and the surrounding
E conditions. E
F F
(2) Even in his VRI, the defendant asserted that when
G passing through the Location, he anticipated that G
pedestrians might suddenly cross the road 55 . This
H H
demonstrates that he foresaw the possibility of
I pedestrians crossing there. I attach full weight to this I
assertion.
J J
(3) As shown in Exhibit P5 (2)-(6), both sides of Ngau Tau
K K
Kok Road have a bus stop, green minibus stop, school,
L public housing estate, and Ngau Tau Kok Road L
Playground. These features collectively indicate that the
M M
incident took place in a densely populated public area,
N N
rather than in an isolated rural area or on a highway. The
O
defendant should have foreseen the likelihood of O
pedestrians crossing the road at the Location.
P P
(4) While certain sections of the pedestrian pathway on
Q Q
each side are fenced, there are also areas with gaps
R where railings are absent, permitting pedestrians to R
access the pathway from the roadway in either direction.
S S
The defendant, who was assigned as the driver for that
T T
55
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 293
U U
V V
- 41 -
A A
B B
minibus route, was anticipated to have knowledge of the
C route, as well as the traffic and pedestrian conditions in C
the area.
D D
E (5) Prior to the arrival of the Minibus, the Deceased had E
proceeded to the dividing line separating the two
F F
eastbound lanes. He was under PW1’s observation for a
G minimum duration of one minute. G
H H
(6) The Deceased had clearly been visible on the eastbound
I roadway for some time, slowly walking from the first I
lane to the second lane, and then slowly proceeding
J J
from the second lane toward the westbound lanes.
K K
(7) Subsequently, the Minibus arrived at the location of the
L incident and stopped in the second left lane, L
approximately 1 to 2 meters in front of the Deceased, to
M M
allow passengers to disembark.
N N
(8) It is important to note that the defendant did not choose
O O
to stop the Minibus at the leftmost eastbound lane near
P the pedestrian path to let passengers off. Instead, he P
wrongly stopped the Minibus in the outer eastbound
Q Q
lane, for passengers to disembark. It is apparent that
R vehicles or motorcycles could pass through the leftmost R
eastbound lane at any time, posing a safety threat to
S S
Minibus passengers or other road users.
T T
U U
V V
- 42 -
A A
B B
(9) When the defendant stopped the Minibus, he must have
C noticed that the Deceased was walking on the roadway, C
especially when the Minibus headlights were on,
D D
visibility was clear, there were no obstacles blocking his
E view and the Minibus was only 1 to 2 meters in front of E
the Deceased.
F F
G (10) Given the pace at which the Deceased was walking, the G
defendant should have had ample time and opportunity
H H
to observe his presence. Even though there was a tall
I truck parked in the leftmost eastbound lane, it was I
stationary and not moving. I find its presence did not
J J
obstruct the defendant’s line of sight in any way.
K K
(11) The Deceased was directly in front of the Minibus and
L L
was by no means in the defendant's blind spot. The point
M of impact was at the right front of the Minibus56, which M
was sufficient to show that the Deceased had already
N N
crossed almost the entire front of the Minibus and
O reached the central dividing line between the eastbound O
and westbound lanes.
P P
Q (12) During the approximately 10 seconds when the Q
Deceased was walking in front of the Minibus while the
R R
defendant was letting passengers off, how did the
S defendant fail to notice the presence of the Deceased? S
T T
56
Exhibit P3(14)
U U
V V
- 43 -
A A
B B
(13) At the time of the incident, the lighting was sufficient,
C C
and all vehicles on the road, including the Minibus, had
D their headlights on. Even though the Deceased was D
wearing dark clothing, this did not prevent the
E E
defendant from clearly seeing the traffic conditions
F ahead. F
G G
(14) The visible crack on the right front windshield of the
H
Minibus and the bloodstains left by the Deceased on the H
ground and his sustaining multiple fractures indicated
I I
that there was a considerable force of impact when the
J Minibus struck the Deceased during the incident. J
K 86. From the entirety of the evidence, I have no difficulty in K
drawing the only reasonable and irresistible inference that the defendant
L L
stopped the Minibus at an unsuitable location to let passengers off to save
M time and for convenience, as the tall container truck and small private car M
were already parked in the leftmost eastbound lane. He stopped the Minibus
N N
in a lane that was not adjacent to the pedestrian path to allow passengers to
O disembark. During this time, his attention was directed toward assisting O
passengers with fare payment, resulting in a failure to adequately observe
P P
the road conditions ahead before proceeding forward and substantially
Q overlooking the presence of the Deceased. Had the defendant paid a proper Q
lookout, exercised due concentration, and remained attentive to the road
R R
conditions ahead, he should have observed the presence of the Deceased in
S sufficient time to apply his brakes, thereby avoiding the collision. S
T T
U U
V V
- 44 -
A A
B B
87. Considering the overall circumstances of the case, the
C defendant’s series of driving actions were sufficient to constitute dangerous C
driving, rather than merely a momentary lapse in attention. His driving fell
D D
far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it
E would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way E
would be dangerous. I have carefully considered everything said by Mr.
F F
Sadhwani both individually and collectively. Nothing said by him caused
G me to doubt the findings I have made. G
H H
CAUSE OF DEATH
I I
88. In HKSAR v Lam Ying Yu [2014] 2 HKLRD 895, Hon
J J
McWalters J stated the following in paragraph 77 of the judgment:-
K K
“The law relating to causation in respect of this offence is that
L an accused’s dangerous driving has to be a cause of the L
deceased’s death. It does not have to be the only or even the
substantial or major cause of the death, as long as it is something
M M
more than de minimus then it qualifies as a cause. (See R v Chiu
Tat Shing Dennis [1985] 2 HKC 487, following R v Hennigan
N [1971] 3 All ER 133.) “De Minimus” simply means that the N
dangerous driving was a cause of the accident and “something
more than a slight or trifling link.” See R v Kimsey [1996] Crim
O LR 35 ” O
P P
89. According to my findings, the Deceased was slowly crossing
Q the road in a normal manner before being struck by the Minibus. Even Q
considering the defendant’s account in the VRI, which suggested that the
R R
Deceased suddenly rushed onto the road in a manner akin to suicide (which
S was not accepted by the court), I find the defence assertion that the S
Deceased may have died from a heart attack rather than as a result of the
T T
defendant’s driving to be entirely unfounded and without any merit.
U U
V V
- 45 -
A A
B B
C 90. Based on the Medical and Autopsy Reports57, and taking into C
account the evidence before me, I have no trouble in finding that the death
D D
of the Deceased was caused by him being struck by the offside front of the
E Minibus, which caused the Deceased to fall down, which tragically resulted E
in multiple injuries, from which the Deceased could not recover. In other
F F
words, it was the defendant’s driving that caused the death of the Deceased.
G I give full weight to the contents of the Autopsy Report prepared by PW4. G
I accept her evidence that the autopsy and pathological tests showed no
H H
signs of myocardial infarction (heart attack) in the Deceased.
I I
91. I am satisfied that the direct cause of death of the Deceased
J was from multiple injuries resulting from the collision made by the J
defendant.
K K
L CONCLUSION L
M M
92. I am satisfied on all the evidence before me that the
N N
prosecution has proved each of the ingredients of the offence beyond
O
reasonable doubt the defendant drove dangerously causing death of the O
deceased and I convict the defendant accordingly.
P P
Q Q
R R
( Ivy Chui )
Deputy District Judge
S S
T T
57
Exhibit P7, P8 and P15
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 486/2024
C [2025] HKDC 1675 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 486 OF 2024
F F
G -------------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I TANG TAI WAI I
---------------------------------------
J J
K Before: Deputy District Judge Ivy Chui K
Date: 24 October 2025
L L
Present: Mr Laskey Edward F Le B, counsel-on-fiat, for HKSAR
M Mr Sadhwani Kamlesh Arjan, instructed by C&Y Lawyers, M
assigned by the Director for Legal Aid, for the Defendant
N N
Offence: Causing death by dangerous driving（危險駕駛引致他人死
O O
亡）
P P
----------------------------------------
Q Q
REASONS FOR VERDICT
R ---------------------------------------- R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
INTRODUCTION
C C
1. The Defendant pleaded not guilty to one charge of causing
D D
death by dangerous driving, contrary to section 36(1) of the Road Traffic
E Ordinance, Cap 374 (“RTO”) but admitted the lesser offence of careless E
driving at the outset of the proceedings. The lesser plea, however, was not
F F
accepted by the Prosecution and the trial proceeded as charged.
G G
THE PROSECUTION CASE
H H
I 2. A red public light Bus bearing registration mark UX7073 (the I
“Minibus”), driven by the defendant, collided with Mr Kwok Yuen Muk
J J
(the “Deceased”) on Ngau Tau Kok Road, Kowloon, at around 7:23 pm on
K 22 May 2023. K
L L
3. The location of the incident was near Lamppost No E7948,
M Ngau Tau Kok Road, Ngau Tau Kok, Kowloon (the “Location”). The M
incident took place on the eastbound lane of Ngau Tau Kok Road, which
N N
was a two-lane road emerging into one lane. The opposite lane, Ngau Tau
O O
Kok Road (westbound), was a one-lane road. At the Location, on both sides
P
of the road, there were pedestrian railings, save for an opening on the Ngau P
Tau Kok Road (eastbound) near the Location where there appeared to be
Q Q
Route No. 35 green public light bus stand1. Further, a short distance along
R
Ngau Tau Kok Road (westbound), there was also an opening with no R
S S
T T
1
See photographs marked exhibit P3(5), P5(3) and P5(4) and a sketch showing the location of incident
marked exhibit P6
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
pedestrian railings where there was a bus stop in front of Ngau Tau Kwok
C Road Playground2. C
D 4. At the time of the incident, the Deceased was crossing Ngau D
Tau Kok Road from the eastbound lane toward the westbound lane at a slow
E E
pace. Upon reaching the second left lane of the eastbound carriageway, the
F Minibus halted in that lane, which was not immediately adjacent to the F
pedestrian path, to let passengers alight. The Deceased was one to two
G G
meters in front of the Minibus, walking slowly toward the westbound lane.
H After the passengers got off, the defendant drove forward and collided with H
the Deceased.
I I
J 5. The Deceased suffered multiple severe injuries and died at J
2204 hours on 23 May 2023, the next day of the incident. He was 84 years
K K
old. Autopsy was conducted on the Deceased by Dr Jenny Lik Ka TSE (“Dr
L Tse”) who was PW4 in this case, opined that the direct cause of death was L
Multiple injuries due to road traffic accident (multiple rib fractures with
M M
intrapulmonary haemorrhage, pelvic fractures with retroperitoneal
N N
haemorrhage and skull fractures with subdural and subarachnoid
O
haemorrhage). Meanwhile, Dr Tse opined that “Coronary artery O
atherosclerosis” was also a significant condition contributing to the death
P P
but it was not related to the direct cause of death.
Q Q
6. At the material time, the weather was fine, the road was dry,
R R
the traffic was moderate, and the road was illuminated by streetlights.
S Mechanical examination found no defects in the Minibus. S
T T
2
See photographs marked exhibit P3(1), P3(10) and P5(4)
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
THE DEFENCE CASE
C C
7. Mr Sadhwani represented the defendant. It is uncontested that
D D
the defendant was driving the Minibus on Ngau Tau Kok Road (eastbound)
E at the material time, and that it struck the Deceased. E
F F
8. Nonetheless, the defendant denies the allegation of having
G halted the Minibus to allow passengers to disembark at the time of the G
incident. The defence asserts that the Deceased abruptly entered the second
H H
left lane from the first left lane of the eastbound carriageway, directly into
I the path of the Minibus driven by the defendant, who was consequently I
unable to stop in time, leading to the collision. The defence argues that the
J J
manner of his driving fell far below one of a competent and careful driver
K and denies that the Deceased's death was caused by injuries from the K
collision.
L L
M THE ISSUES M
N N
9. The main issues considered during the trial are as follows:-
O O
(a) Whether the Minibus driven by the defendant stopped
P P
to let passengers alight at the Location;
Q Q
(b) Whether the Deceased entered the roadway quickly or
R R
slowly;
S S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
(c) Whether the defendant’s driving, in the circumstances
C and evidence presented before the court, amounted to C
dangerous driving; and
D D
E (d) Whether the Deceased's death resulted from multiple E
injuries caused by the Minibus collision.
F F
G PROSECUTION EVIDENCE G
H H
10. The prosecution called four witnesses, Mr Cheung Tak Fai
I (PW1), Mr Mok Kang Lung (PW2), SPC54001 (PW3) and Dr Tse (PW4) I
who conducted autopsy on the Deceased on 12 June 2023.
J J
K 11. Facts have been admitted pursuant to section 65C of the K
Criminal Procedure Ordinance (“CPO”), Cap 2213 including production of
L L
a total of 39 photographs and a sketch showing the accident location 4 ;
M medical report of the injuries of the Deceased from A&E department of M
Queen Elizabeth Hospital (“QEH”)5; and medical report of the injuries of
N N
the Deceased from the Department of Surgery of QEH6.
O O
12. It was also admitted that between 2103 and 2306 hours on 22
P P
May 2023 a record of interview was given by the defendant under caution
Q at Kowloon Regional Headquarters 7 . The said record of interview was Q
produced as Exhibit P9 and P9A.
R R
S S
3
Exhibit P1
4
Exhibit P3(1)-(25) and exhibit P5(1)-(14)
T 5 T
Exhibit P7
6
Exhibit P8
7
Exhibit P9 and P9A
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
13. On 24 May 2023 between 1731 hours and 1808 hours,
C SPC4433 and PC14463, conducted a video record of interview (“VRI”) C
under caution with the defendant. The voluntariness of this VRI under
D D
caution was also admitted. It was accurately recorded on a disc, which was
E produced and marked as Exhibit P10 and P10A. It was also played and E
viewed in the court.
F F
G 14. Mr Sadhwani did not challenge that the answers in the record G
of interview and the subsequent VRI were given by the defendant
H H
voluntarily and the transcripts were accurate statements of his answers.
I I
15. The statement of Tam Kwan Ho (“Tam”) was admitted under
J J
section 65B of the CPO8. He was a Senior Ambulanceman and was in
K charge of ambulance A217 on the day of incident. Briefly stated, K
Ambulance A217 reached the traffic accident location at 1930 on 22 May
L L
2023. Tam found the injured person (the Deceased) lying in the eastbound
M lane of Ngau Tau Kok Road, about 1 metre from the Minibus's offside front. M
Tam found the eyes of the Deceased opened naturally, and he was rather
N N
confused, making unintelligible sounds, and was not responsive to
O questions. At that time, the Deceased was in a semi-conscious state. His O
left forehead had a laceration and haematoma of about 3 cm. Tam treated
P P
his wounds and stabilized his spine using a cervical collar and a head
Q immobilizer. Q
R R
ORAL TESTIMONY
S S
The evidence of PW1 (Cheung Tak Fai)
T T
8
Exhibit P16
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
C 16. PW1, 48 years old, is employed as a manager at a fire services C
company and possesses a driving license, with limited driving experience.
D D
He resides on Ngau Tau Kok Road and is acquainted with the location.
E E
17. At 7:00 pm on 22 May 2023, PW1 took the company shuttle
F F
from Kowloon Bay and got off at Pak Ling House, Ngau Tau Kok Road
G (eastbound). Around 7:20 pm, PW1 crossed to the westbound side, G
intending to catch a bus for dinner.
H H
18. When PW1 reached the pedestrian path on the opposite side,
I I
he observed an elderly man (later identified as the Deceased) in the
J eastbound lane, who also appeared to be preparing to cross towards the J
pedestrian path where PW1 was located. The Deceased was moving slowly,
K K
taking small steps that lasted approximately one to two seconds each. At
L that moment, the distance between PW1 and the Deceased was estimated L
to be about 8 to 10 meters.
M M
N 19. At that time, PW1 stood by the pedestrian railings and N
observed the Deceased, who was moving slowly in the middle of the road.
O O
PW1 noted the potential for an accident, as there was a risk of the Deceased
P being hit by a vehicle. During this period, PW1 saw several vehicles, P
including trucks and light goods vehicles, swerve into the opposite lane to
Q Q
avoid the Deceased. The Deceased continued to move forward at a slow
R pace, did not stop, and was not carrying any items. R
S S
20. At this moment, PW1 observed a red public light minibus,
T later identified as the one driven by the defendant, traveling along the T
eastbound lane and stopping approximately 1 to 2 meters from the Deceased
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
to allow passengers to alight. PW1 stated that the Minibus did not pull over
C next to the pedestrian path on the eastbound lane but rather stopped in the C
outer eastbound lane for passengers to disembark. PW1 said that the
D D
Minibus stopped in the outer lane to let passengers off. This may have been
E because a small private car was parked further ahead in the innermost lane, E
making it unnecessary for the Minibus to merge back into the outer lane
F F
after dropping off passengers.
G G
21. PW1 observed that after passengers got off the Minibus, it
H moved forward and struck the Deceased, who was crossing the road slowly. H
PW1 saw the front of the Minibus hit the Deceased but could not identify
I I
the exact point of impact. The Deceased fell to the ground upon impact.
J PW1 stated that no sound was observed and he was unable to determine the J
speed of the Minibus at that time.
K K
L 22. PW1 stated that the distance between the Minibus and himself L
was roughly equivalent to the width of two and a half traffic lanes,
M M
estimated at around seven to eight meters. He had an unobstructed view
N throughout the observation. Following the incident, PW1 called the police N
before leaving the scene.
O O
P 23. PW1 marked his observation position on Exhibit P11 with a P
red cross in a circle, indicating where he was watching the Deceased from
Q Q
the pedestrian railings on westbound lane at the time of the incident. He
R drew a triangle to represent the Deceased’s location before being struck by R
the Minibus and used an arrow to show the direction in which the Deceased
S S
was crossing the road. PW1 said before the Minibus appeared, the
T Deceased had almost walked to the middle of the two eastbound traffic T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
lanes. PW1 confirmed that exhibit P3(3) and P3(9) show the location where
C the Minibus stopped after colliding with the Deceased. C
D 24. During cross-examination, PW1 stated that it was already dark D
at the time of the incident. Although it was not as bright as during daylight
E E
hours, there was enough light at the scene for him to observe what
F happened. When he first saw the Deceased, they were approximately 8 to F
10 meters apart. A few vehicles passed in front of PW1 during this period,
G G
but traffic was not considered heavy. Thus, his view remained largely
H unobstructed. H
I I
25. PW1 said at the time of the incident, all vehicles, including the
J Minibus, had their headlights on, but PW1 could not distinguish whether J
they were on high or low beam. He did not check if the Deceased walked
K K
straight but observed that the Deceased moved forward slowly without
L changing direction. L
M M
26. PW1 stated that he remained on the pavement while observing
N N
the Deceased, primarily due to the risks associated with walking at a slow
O
pace on the road. He focused on the Deceased’s actions. The Deceased O
crossed the road without looking around and walked at a slow, steady pace,
P P
without accelerating or stopping. He could not recall the exact duration of
Q his observation but estimated it lasted slightly over a minute. PW1 admitted Q
that he did not consider helping the Deceased at that time.
R R
27. PW1 stated that only the small private car was stationary in the
S S
leftmost eastbound lane at the location, approximately 35 metres from his
T position. The small private car was parked at a greater distance from the T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
point of impact. PW1 indicated the position of the small private car on
C exhibit P13 using a red rectangle. C
D 28. PW1 did not observe any tall or large container trucks parked D
in the leftmost eastbound lane. PW1 denied that a large truck was travelling
E E
in that lane at the time of the incident. In response to the defence claim that
F the Deceased was crossing the road quickly, PW1 disagreed and affirmed F
that, based on his observation, the Deceased moved at a slow pace
G G
throughout.
H H
29. PW1 said he observed a female passenger, aged around 50 to
I I
60 years of age, get off the Minibus. The Minibus stopped for
J approximately 10 seconds to allow passengers to disembark. The defence J
asked how he could have seen a passenger getting off the minibus if he was
K K
continuously observing the Deceased. PW1 responded that while observing
L the passenger getting off, his attention was not solely on the Deceased; L
however, because the Minibus was near the Deceased, he was able to
M M
observe both simultaneously. PW1 further said that the Minibus had large
N N
windows, and the interior lights were on, providing sufficient lighting for
O
him to clearly observe the passenger alighting. O
P P
30. Under cross-examination, PW1 denied that no passengers got
Q off at the time of the incident. He also disagreed that the Minibus did not Q
stop to let passengers off at the Location. PW1 said that the Minibus halted
R R
and the passenger disembarked at the location indicated in exhibit D1(2),
S where the individual in green was positioned, which corresponds to the S
scene of the incident and not any other location (refer also to exhibit P5(4)).
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
31. During cross-examination, PW1 stated he was unable to verify
C whether the Minibus was traveling at approximately 10 km/h before the C
collision. He admitted, however, that his witness statement recorded the
D D
Minibus moving forward about 1.5 meters at roughly 10 km/h after
E dropping off a passenger, after which it struck the Deceased. E
F F
32. At that time, the Deceased was seen lying on the ground, still
G moving his limbs. Based on the angle of observation, PW1 was able to G
ascertain only that the front of the Minibus made contact with the Deceased.
H H
PW1 further estimated that approximately 11 to 12 seconds passed between
I the Minibus halting to allow a passenger to disembark and its subsequent I
movement forward.
J J
K 33. PW1 agreed that if the Deceased had not been knocked down K
and kept moving forward in a straight line without changing direction, he
L L
would have reached the pedestrian path with the railings without any open
M passage. M
N N
The evidence of PW2 (Mok Kang Lung)
O O
34. PW2, who is around 37 years old, has possessed a driver's
P P
license for a period of time. At approximately 7:23 pm on 22 May 2023,
Q he was driving his private vehicle with the registration XK8867. Upon Q
arriving at the intersection of Ngau Tau Kok Road and Elegance Road, he
R R
stopped at a red light. Once the traffic light turned green, he continued
S westbound on Ngau Tau Kok Road in the right lane, preparing to make a S
right turn at the upcoming traffic lights.
T T
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
35. While driving, PW2 observed an object ahead that was
C illuminated by headlights from behind. Upon approaching, PW2 identified C
the object as an elderly person (later identified to be the Deceased) standing
D D
in the eastbound lane opposite his direction of travel. In his recollection,
E the Deceased was wearing dark-colored clothing. He was standing about E
1.5 feet from the dividing line between the eastbound and westbound lanes.
F F
Simultaneously, PW2 observed a minibus (the one driven by the defendant)
G stopped in the second lane from the left on the eastbound side, near the G
dividing line separating the eastbound and westbound lanes, while PW2
H H
was traveling in the far right lane of the westbound carriageway.
I I
36. PW2 did not know why the Minibus stopped there. At that
J time, the deceased was standing in front of the Minibus. The Minibus J
suddenly began to move, resulting in its right front colliding with the right
K K
side of the Deceased. PW2 immediately turned left to avoid contact with
L the Deceased. As his vehicle continued forward, he was unable to observe L
subsequent events involving the Deceased following the impact with the
M M
Minibus. PW2 later went back to the location and informed the police about
N N
the events he observed.
O O
37. PW2 testified that, at the time of the incident, the Deceased
P P
was standing rather than walking or running. He also observed a stationary
Q tall container truck parked in the leftmost lane of the eastbound side near Q
the pedestrian path. He marked on exhibit P14 the position where he first
R R
saw the Deceased. At that time, the Deceased was standing to the right
S front of the Minibus, near the divider between the eastbound and westbound S
lanes, and was facing the westbound lane.
T T
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
38. During cross-examination, PW2 said when he first saw the
C Deceased, he was standing in the second lane from the left on the eastbound C
side and was not moving. From the moment he realized the object was
D D
actually the Deceased until his vehicle passed by him, the time was very
E short, only a few seconds. During these few seconds, PW2 observed that E
the Deceased remained standing. PW2 estimated the entire period to be no
F F
more than 10 seconds.
G G
39. PW2 stated that once he noticed the Deceased, he watched him
H H
closely without any visual obstruction. He saw the Deceased in front of the
I Minibus about five seconds before the collision. While observing the I
Deceased, PW2 was also paying attention to the traffic ahead and his
J J
vehicle’s speed.
K K
40. Under cross-examination, PW2 denied that the Deceased was
L L
walking quickly in the traffic lane before the collision, affirming instead
M that the Deceased remained stationary and did not exhibit any movement M
before the collision. PW2 confirmed in his witness statement to the police
N N
that the events transpired rapidly; he recalled only that the Deceased was
O dressed in a dark top, but could not recall the type of pants worn or whether O
any bags were carried. PW2 further reiterated that the whole incident
P P
happened very abruptly, lasting only a few seconds.
Q Q
41. PW2 said that at the time of the incident, there were streetlights
R R
on Ngau Tau Kok Road, and the vehicles traveling on the road, including
S PW2 and the Minibus, had their headlights on. There were no vehicles on S
the road with dazzling headlights at that time. PW2 agreed that the incident
T T
occurred at 7:20 pm, it was already dark and that he could not observe
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
objects at a greater distance. He disagreed that he had difficulty observing
C objects close to him, but agreed that visibility was not as clear as during C
daylight. He was able to simultaneously observe the actions of both the
D D
Minibus and the Deceased.
E E
42. PW2 stated that upon observation, he simultaneously noticed
F F
the Deceased, the minibus, and the tall container truck. The tall container
G truck was stationary, parked in the eastbound lane, to the left of the Minibus G
and parallel to it. He had already noticed its presence after passing the
H H
traffic lights the intersection of Ngau Tau Kok Road and Elegance Road,
I roughly about five seconds before the collision. PW2 denied that the tall I
container truck was moving, stating it was stationary but uncertain if its
J J
headlights were on.
K K
43. Under cross-examination, PW2 denied that the Deceased
L L
crossed in front of the moving tall container truck and subsequently entered
M the lane of the approaching Minibus, resulting in the collision. M
N N
The evidence of PW3 (Sergeant 54001)
O O
44. PW3 is Sergeant 54001. On 22 May 2023 at 7:24 pm, he
P P
received instructions from the control center to go to Ngau Tau Kok Road
Q to handle a suspected traffic accident in which a red minibus had struck a Q
pedestrian, causing injuries.
R R
S 45. PW3 arrived at the scene at around 7:33 pm, by which time the S
injured person (the Deceased) had already been placed in an ambulance for
T T
treatment. He observed damage and bloodstains on the right front of the
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
Minibus, giving him a reasonable ground to suspect that the Minibus driver
C had committed a criminal offence. C
D 46. Noticing there was no driver in the red minibus UX7073, PW3 D
asked at the scene who its driver was. The defendant then approached PW3,
E E
claiming to be the driver of the red minibus. Once the Minibus driver was
F identified, and prior to any further inquiry, the defendant promptly stated, F
“While driving toward Kwun Tong, I suddenly saw him appear in the middle
G G
of the road then the collision happened”. PW3 said he did not have the
H opportunity to caution the defendant. H
I I
The evidence of PW4 (Dr TSE)
J J
47. Basically, PW4 was tendered for cross-examination. She is a
K K
qualified pathologist currently working at Queen Elizabeth Hospital's
L Department of Pathology. On 12 June 2023, PW4 was working in that L
department. She confirmed that she wrote an autopsy report on 6 November
M M
9
2023 , which accurately recorded the autopsy she performed on the
N N
Deceased. Exhibit P15 is her report, later revised in wording by a senior
O
colleague without altering its meaning or PW4’s conclusion on the cause of O
death. She required time to prepare the report and followed several
P P
procedures, including examining pathological specimens under a
Q microscope. Q
R R
48. PW4 said the date of the Deceased’s death was 23 May 2023,
S but the autopsy was performed on 12 June 2023. When asked if conducting S
T T
9
Exhibit P15
U U
V V
- 16 -
A A
B B
the autopsy on the day of death would have changed the results, she stated
C she believed it would not have made a difference. C
D D
49. PW4 reported on page 2 that the abdominal aorta had severe
E atherosclerosis with calcification and ulceration. She confirmed these E
conditions can cause complications like stroke or heart attack, depending
F F
on the affected vessel’s location. PW4 stated that pre-existing heart disease
G in the Deceased could not be excluded, but there was no direct link between G
the abdominal aorta and the heart in this context.
H H
I 50. When questioned about the possibility of the Deceased I
experiencing a heart attack prior to sustaining injuries, PW4 stated that this
J J
could not be entirely excluded. Nevertheless, the autopsy findings and
K results from various pathological examinations did not provide any K
evidence indicating that the Deceased had suffered a myocardial infarction
L L
(heart attack).
M M
51. PW4 stated that “coronary artery atherosclerosis” was
N N
recorded under Roman numeral II below the immediate cause of death
O because there was 90% luminal stenosis in the left anterior descending O
artery at 0.5 cm away from its aortic origin for 0.5 cm. According to PW4,
P P
this condition affected the Deceased’s overall health but was not considered
Q an immediate or direct cause of death based on her autopsy findings. Q
R R
52. When asked about whether the injuries sustained by the
S Deceased would have been non-fatal for a healthy individual, PW4 S
indicated that it is not possible to generalize, making it difficult to provide
T T
a definitive answer. These injuries are considered severe and can
U U
V V
- 17 -
A A
B B
potentially be fatal. PW4 said that the age of the Deceased was also
C factored into the assessment. C
D D
Defendant’s Record of Interview
E E
53. On 22 May 2023 between 2103 and 2306 at Kowloon
F F
Regional Headquarters, the defendant was interviewed by PC5469. Under
G caution, the defendant made the following statements10:- G
H H
(1) At the time of the incident, he was driving the Minibus
I UX7073; I
J J
(2) The weather was gloomy, the road surface was dry, the
K streetlights were on, and there was heavy traffic with K
many vehicles11;
L L
M (3) The Minibus departed from Castle Peak Road in Cheung M
Sha Wan, with the destination being Yue Man Square in
N N
12
Kwun Tong ;
O O
P
(4) As he approached the scene of the incident, vehicles in P
the opposite lane had their high beams on, which
Q Q
affected his visibility13;
R R
S S
10
Exhibit P9 and 9A
T 11 T
Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 3
12
Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 4
13
Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 5
U U
V V
- 18 -
A A
B B
(5) He was driving in the fast lane of the eastbound Ngau
C Tau Kok Road, while a tall vehicle was traveling in front C
of him in the slow lane to his left. The Minibus was
D D
positioned behind about half the length of the tall
E vehicle14; E
F F
(6) He was traveling at around 20 something kilometers per
G hour when suddenly an elderly man ran out from the G
front of the vehicle in what he described as a suicidal
H H
manner15;
I I
(7) The elderly man ran very quickly, and the defendant had
J J
no way to avoid him16;
K K
(8) At that time, his speed was not fast. In fact, he had
L L
already slowed down considerably out of concern that
M someone might run out, but he had not expected it to M
actually happen17;
N N
O (9) At first, he thought he had hit an “object”, but later O
realized he had hit a person18;
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
14
Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 5
15
Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 5
T 16 T
Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 5
17
Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 5
18
Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 5
U U
V V
- 19 -
A A
B B
(10) When asked when he first saw the injured, he said he
C only realized the injured after getting out of the Minibus C
19
following the collision ;
D D
E (11) When he first saw the “object” it was about half a car E
length in front of the Minibus20;
F F
G (12) After dropping off passengers at Ngau Tau Kok Market, G
he did not make any further stops before collision21;
H H
I (13) There were around 8 to 10 passengers on board at the I
time of the accident22; and
J J
K (14) He suspected the elderly man committed suicide23. K
L L
Defendant’s VRI
M M
54. Later the VRI was conducted24. Under caution, the defendant
N N
said, inter alia, the following statements:-
O O
(1) At approximately 7:23 pm on 22 May 2023, at the
P P
location near lamp post E7948 on Ngau Tau Kok Road,
Q Kwun Tong, Kowloon, he was driving a red and yellow Q
public light bus with licence plate UX707325.
R R
19
S Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 6 S
20
Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 8
21
Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 9
22
Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 10
T 23 T
Exhibit P9 and 9A Answer 15
24
Exhibit P10 and 10A
25
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 47
U U
V V
- 20 -
A A
B B
C (2) He has over thirty years of experience driving C
minibuses, and the vehicle he drove that day was
D D
mechanically sound and operating normally26.
E E
(3) He started work at 7:00 am, took a one-hour break from
F F
noon to 1:00 pm, and then continued driving until the
G end of his shift. That day, he completed about five to G
six trips. The incident occurred near the end of his
H H
workday27.
I I
(4) The route he drove started from Cheung Sha Wan
J J
Medical Bureau West Street, passed through Castle
K Peak Road, and ended at Grand Central and Yue Man K
Square, Kwun Tong28.
L L
M (5) Prior to the incident, he stopped to let passengers off M
near the intersection of Ngau Tau Kok Road and Ding
N N
On Street, then drove along Ngau Tau Kok Road toward
O Kwun Tong, passing the Kwun Tong MTR station and O
heading towards Yue Man Square. After letting
P P
passengers off, the journey was smooth with no further
Q stops; both road and weather conditions were good until Q
the place where the accident happened, where he
R R
29
stopped .
S S
26
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 57 to 60
T 27 T
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 89 to 122
28
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 123 to 132
29
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 177 to 198
U U
V V
- 21 -
A A
B B
C (6) He did not know the Deceased30. C
D D
(7) The road consisted of four lanes, with two lanes for each
E direction. He was driving in the lane designated for E
faster traffic. His visibility was limited by the tall truck
F F
ahead, which obstructed his view and hindered his
G ability to observe the Deceased abruptly entering the G
roadway. As a result, he could not stop the Minibus in
H H
time and unfortunately struck the Deceased. The tall
I truck was not parked in the slow lane but was traveling I
in the same direction as the Minibus. The tall truck was
J J
in the slow lane, slightly ahead and parallel to the
K Minibus while the defendant was in the fast lane. The K
Deceased suddenly ran from the front of the tall truck
L L
into the second lane, directly in front of his Minibus31.
M M
(8) The height and width of the tall truck were greater than
N N
the Minibus and completely blocked his view to the left
O front. The Deceased crossed in front of the tall truck O
and then dashed into the path of the Minibus, leaving
P P
32
him no time to react, resulting in the collision .
Q Q
(9) His speed was very slow, around twenty kilometers per
R R
hour, due to heavy traffic at the scene. He emphasized
S that even if he had not hit the Deceased, he might have S
T 30 T
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 133 to 134
31
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 136, 146 and 285
32
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 222 to 241
U U
V V
- 22 -
A A
B B
been struck by an oncoming vehicle. The defendant
C described the Deceased’s behaviour as a “suicidal dash” C
onto the road, as there was no way to reach the
D D
pedestrian path to the opposite side due to railings.
E Additionally, vehicles in the opposite lane had their E
headlights on, which affected the defendant’s
F F
visibility33.
G G
(10) He stressed that the Deceased suddenly and quickly
H H
dashed into the road, and even braking immediately
I could not avoid the collision. He believed his mental I
state was good and his reaction was reasonably quick at
J J
the time of the incident. There were no brake marks at
K the scene, indicating his speed was slow34. K
L L
(11) When asked about the position where he first saw the
M Deceased, he stated that the Deceased appeared on his M
left side, extremely close to the Minibus, leaving him
N N
with almost no time to react, even braking immediately
O could not prevent the collision. The Deceased suddenly O
and quickly dashed out from a gap in the roadside
P P
35
railings on the left side. The Deceased was in a hurry .
Q Q
R R
S S
T 33 T
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 136
34
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 138 to 142
35
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 149 to 168
U U
V V
- 23 -
A A
B B
(12) The Deceased rushed across the road with his head
C down, without looking left or right, in a manner C
described as “suicidal” . 36
D D
E (13) Despite the Deceased being about eighty years old, he E
crossed at a very fast pace. The defendant stressed that
F F
his view was blocked by the tall truck, and the distance
G was too close to stop in time 37. G
H H
(14) The defendant explained that he chose to drive in the
I fast lane for safety reasons and anticipated that someone I
might suddenly dash onto the road; therefore, he kept
J J
his speed at around twenty kilometers per hour, which
K was not fast. Nonetheless, the Deceased suddenly K
appeared, leaving him no time to react or brake,
L L
ultimately resulting in the collision 38.
M M
(15) When asked when he first saw the Deceased, the
N N
defendant said he only saw the Deceased when he hit
O him. The collision happened so suddenly that he could O
not react or brake in time. When he first saw the
P P
Deceased at the left front corner of the Minibus, he
Q initially thought it was an “object” before realizing it Q
was a person39.
R R
S S
36
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 266 to 277
T 37 T
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 145 to 168
38
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 293 to 295
39
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 309 to 312
U U
V V
- 24 -
A A
B B
(16) After the collision, the Minibus’s windshield shattered,
C and the glass fell to the ground. There were about eight C
40
to ten passengers still on board .
D D
E (17) The tall truck in the leftmost lane was traveling faster, E
while his own minibus was slower, following about half
F F
a vehicle length behind. If he had been driving parallel
G to the tall truck, the accident might not have occurred. G
Since the tall truck was in the slow lane, its driver is
H H
likely to have a clearer view of pedestrians, but his view
I in the fast lane was more obstructed, making it harder to I
see pedestrians crossing41.
J J
K (18) The lighting was adequate at the time, streetlights were K
reasonably bright, but the vehicles in the opposite lane
L L
had high beams on, which interfered with his visibility,
M though not severely42. M
N N
(19) The Deceased wore all-black clothing - long sleeves and
O black trousers. He had a medium-slim build, stood O
about 5 feet 7 or 8 inches (approximately 170-173 cm),
P P
43
and was taller than the defendant .
Q Q
R R
S S
40
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 202 to 204
T 41 T
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 285 to 291
42
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 242 to 245
43
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 246 to 265
U U
V V
- 25 -
A A
B B
HALF-WAY SUBMISSION
C C
55. At the close of the prosecution’s case, there was no half-way
D D
submission in respect of the charge, and I then found there was a prima
E facie case in respect of the charge against the defendant. E
F F
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
G G
56. As of his right, the defendant elected not to give evidence. Nor
H H
did he call any witness to testify on his behalf.
I I
GENERAL DIRECTIONS
J J
K 57. I remind myself that the prosecution has the duty to prove the K
elements of the charge against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt. The
L L
defendant has anything to prove. If the court is to draw any inferences
M adverse to the defendant, such inferences have to be the only reasonable M
inferences to be drawn from the evidence. The court must look at the
N N
circumstances of the case before deciding if an inference can be properly
O drawn. O
P P
58. The defendant elected not to give evidence and no witnesses
Q were called on his behalf. No adverse inference is drawn against the Q
defendant for remaining silent. That is his right. This proves nothing one
R R
way or the other.
S S
59. The defendant had given the cautioned statement and VRI, all
T T
of which have been adduced by way of admitted facts. The reply given by
U U
V V
- 26 -
A A
B B
the defendant under caution and the answers contained in his cautioned
C statement and VRI are “mixed statements”. Both the inculpatory and C
exculpatory parts of the interview are evidence for the purpose of
D D
determining where the truth lies44. It is trite law, however, that the court,
E as the tribunal of fact, is entitled to attach different weights to different parts E
of the defendant’s out of court statements45.
F F
G 60. Admitted in evidence is that the defendant has a clear criminal G
record. Therefore, I give myself the good character direction in favour of
H H
the defendant in relation to both propensity and credibility46, which means
I that he is less likely to commit an offence and is more credible in what he I
has said in the record of interview and VRI.
J J
K 61. Even though the defendant indicated before the trial that he K
was willing to plead guilty to careless driving, the court must still consider
L L
whether the prosecution’s evidence meets the required standard. I bear in
M mind that careless driving does not become dangerous driving simply M
because someone has been killed. It is necessary for the court to focus on
N N
the standard of the defendant’s driving and make an assessment as to
O whether it fell far below the standard which would be expected of a O
competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to such a driver that
P P
driving in that way would be dangerous.
Q Q
R R
S S
T 44 T
HKSAR v Yuen Man Tung [2004] 3 HKC 279
45
HKSAR v Huang Xiang Rong [2010] 1 HKLRD 750
46
Tang Siu Man v HKSAR (No 2) (1997-1998) 1 HKCFAR 107
U U
V V
- 27 -
A A
B B
THE LAW
C C
62. A person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if the way
D D
he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful
E driver; and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that E
driving in that way would be dangerous 47.
F F
G 63. Section 36(7) of RTO sets out the circumstances that should G
be taken into account in determining what would be expected of, or obvious
H H
to, a competent and careful driver in a particular case, regard shall be had
I to all the circumstances of the case including:- I
J J
(a) the nature, condition and use of the road concerned
K at the material time; K
L L
(b) the amount of traffic which is actually on the road
M concerned at the material time or which might M
reasonably be expected to be on the road concerned
N N
at the material time; and
O O
(c) the circumstances (including the physical condition
P P
of the accused) of which the accused could be
Q expected to be aware and any circumstances Q
(including the physical condition of the accused)
R R
shown to have been within the knowledge of the
S accused. S
T T
47
Section 36(4) of RTO
U U
V V
- 28 -
A A
B B
64. Whether a person’s way of driving is dangerous is a matter to
C be decided objectively, but the elements of the offence of dangerous driving C
do not include any specific intent to drive dangerously. Yeung VP, giving
D D
the judgment of the court in HKSAR v Lam Chi Fat, [2012] 1 HKLRD 968,
E said:- E
F F
“33. Dangerous driving is a conclusion which must be drawn
on the basis of the acts related to the way of driving. Evidence
G that supports the charge of dangerous driving may include: G
(1) Excessive speeding, particularly when it is
H raining and the road is slippery. H
I (2) Non-compliance with traffic signs, such as I
driving through a police road block; “jumping a red
light”; failure to stop in front of a “zebra crossing” to
J give way to pedestrians; ignoring pedestrian stud J
crossing and driving past at high speed; driving into a
K
“No entry” section of road; speeding at double white K
lines, etc.
L (3) Ignoring road safety regulations, such as L
intentionally driving a vehicle that is not maintained in
good condition; driving a goods vehicle that is greatly
M M
overloaded; going against traffic directions and driving a
heavy goods vehicle down a very steep slope illegal car
N racing, etc. N
(4) Disregarding the danger and going on driving,
O while knowing full well that one’s physical condition is O
not good and hence not suitable to drive, such as being
P under the influence of alcohol or drugs or being P
generally ill.
Q 34. Of course the above examples are just factors to be Q
considered in dealing with acts of dangerous driving and they by
no means represent an exhaustive list of all relevant factors.
R R
35. If the above or similar way of driving falls far below
S what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it S
would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving
in that way would be dangerous, then the driver concerned
T would be guilty of dangerous driving.” T
U U
V V
- 29 -
A A
B B
65. In deciding whether the defendant is guilty of dangerous
C driving, the court must base its consideration on his way of driving rather C
48
than the consequences of the accident .
D D
E EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE E
F F
66. I have carefully considered all the evidence and the
G submissions of Mr Sadhwani. The absence of reference to any specific G
piece of evidence or argument in my verdict should not be interpreted as an
H H
oversight or lack of consideration.
I I
67. In his written closing submissions, Mr. Sadhwani mainly
J J
criticized the testimony of PW1 and PW2 as follows: -
K K
(1) When PW1 was observing the Deceased from the
L L
pedestrian path on the westbound side, he was not
M facing the Deceased directly but looking at him at an M
angle. During this time, vehicles traveling on the
N N
westbound lane passed between PW1 and the Deceased.
O Therefore, PW1 did not have a clear and direct view of O
the accident, and thus his observations should not be
P P
given significant weight.
Q Q
(2) PW1 described the Deceased as taking small, slow steps
R R
before the accident, while PW2 stated that the Deceased
S stood still for about 10 seconds and did not move. S
T T
48
Paragraph 32 of Yeung VP in Lam Chi Fat
U U
V V
- 30 -
A A
B B
(3) PW1 did not notice a tall container truck in the inner
C lane near the Minibus, mentioning only a small C
stationary private car roughly 35 meters away.
D D
Conversely, PW2 was able to identify the said truck
E positioned beside the Minibus at the time of the E
Accident.
F F
G (4) While PW1 was paying attention to the movement of G
the Deceased, he was also observing passengers getting
H H
off the minibus. Therefore, there may be a certain
I degree of inaccuracy in his observations. I
J J
(5) As a driver, PW2 was focused on driving and paying
K attention to the traffic ahead, while also noticing the K
Deceased and the movement of the Minibus, as well as
L L
the tall container truck parked in the leftmost eastbound
M lane. Under these circumstances, it is possible that M
PW2’s observations became inaccurate.
N N
O (6) PW1 claimed to have seen the Minibus letting off a O
female passenger. However, according to PW2, the tall
P P
container truck was positioned in such a way that it
Q would have blocked the passenger door, making it Q
impossible for anyone to alight.
R R
S (7) At the time of the incident, it was already dark, which S
may have affected the reliability of observations made
T T
by both PW1 and PW2.
U U
V V
- 31 -
A A
B B
C 68. I have the advantage of seeing and hearing both PW1 and PW2 C
giving evidence in court, I do not find them to be evasive when answering
D D
questions. I am satisfied that they all gave an accurate account of their
E knowledge. They impressed me as a witness of the truth. I find their E
evidence credible, reliable, clear and straightforward.
F F
69. The defence argued that it was impossible for PW1 and PW2
G G
to observe different things at the same time, thereby questioning the
H accuracy of their observations. I do not agree. Given that the Deceased, the H
Minibus, the tall container truck, and the small private car were all in close
I I
proximity to one another, it is reasonable and plausible that both witnesses
J could have observed different things at the same time. J
K K
70. Mr. Sadhwani criticized that PW1 stated the Deceased was
L walking very slowly at the time of the incident, taking about one step every L
1 to 2 seconds, while PW2 said he observed the Deceased standing still.
M M
After careful consideration, I find there is no contradiction between their
N N
accounts. First of all, the times and distances referred to by both witnesses
O
were only approximate estimates. PW1 remained on the pedestrian path on O
the westbound side to observe the Deceased, concerning that walking
P P
slowly on the road could present safety risks. This consideration led him
Q to direct attention toward the Deceased. Therefore, I find PW1 was able to Q
clearly recount the Deceased’s every movement. Although there was traffic
R R
on Ngau Tau Kok Road during the observation period, I accept that his view
S was mostly unobstructed. S
T T
U U
V V
- 32 -
A A
B B
71. In contrast, PW2 only became aware of the situation when he
C was driving along the westbound lane of Ngau Tau Kok Road and noticed C
an “object” (the Deceased) ahead in his field of vision, prompting him to
D D
pay attention to the circumstances. At the time of the incident, PW2 was
E driving, so while observing the movements of the Deceased, he also had to E
pay attention to the traffic conditions ahead. It is worth noting that,
F F
according to PW2’s testimony, he only observed the Deceased for a few
G seconds, whereas PW1 observed him for at least one minute. It is G
understandable that PW2 believed the Deceased was standing still, since
H H
PW1 noted the Deceased was moving slowly and taking small steps lasting
I one to two seconds each. I
J J
72. The defence argued that PW1 observed a small private car
K stopped at the front of the leftmost eastbound lane, which PW2 did not K
mention. Conversely PW2 observed a tall container truck parked next to
L L
the defendant’s minibus, whereas PW1 did not notice its presence. I find
M this may be attributed to PW1 and PW2 having viewed the Deceased from M
different angles and each focusing on various surroundings. I am of the
N N
view that there is, in fact, no contradiction or unreasonable aspect in their
O testimony. O
P P
73. Although the incident happened at night, PW1 said that the
Q lighting was sufficient for him to see things clearly. When asked which Q
part of the minibus struck the Deceased, PW1 said that he could only
R R
confirm that it was the front of the minibus that struck him, but PW1 was
S unsure exactly which part of the front made contact. I find PW1 S
undoubtedly gave a truthful and accurate account to the court of what he
T T
saw and heard, without any speculation.
U U
V V
- 33 -
A A
B B
C 74. Despite the fact that both witnesses indicated that the lighting C
was less bright than daytime, there was no indication that it was completely
D D
dark or the visibility was seriously impaired for walking or driving. Even
E the defendant also stated in the VRI that the streetlights at the scene were E
sufficient49. I am sure that at the time of the incident, the streetlights were
F F
sufficient enough for both witnesses to clearly observe a relatively large red
G minibus stopped on the roadway. I accept PW1’s evidence that the Minibus G
stopped in the outer eastbound lane to allow passengers to alight and the
H H
interior lights of the Minibus were illuminated at the time.
I I
75. Overall, I come to the view that the testimony of PW1 and
J J
PW2 are mutually supportive and consistent, and I find their testimony to
K be straightforward and truthful, without exaggeration. Both witnesses, K
under cross-examination, unequivocally denied the defence allegations
L L
that:-
M M
(1) At the time of the incident, the Deceased was crossing
N N
the road at a rapid pace; and
O O
(2) The Minibus driven by the defendant was not stationary
P P
in the second lane from the left on the eastbound
Q carriageway of Ngau Tau Kok Road. Q
R R
76. Mr. Sadhwani further submitted that PW3 questioned the
S defendant at the scene without caution. I accept PW3’s testimony that, S
upon arriving at the location and discovering that there was no driver in the
T T
49
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 243
U U
V V
- 34 -
A A
B B
Minibus, it was necessary to first identify the Minibus driver at the scene.
C In response to PW3, the defendant stepped forward, identified himself as C
the Minibus driver, and said, “I suddenly saw him in the middle of the road,
D D
then the collision happened.”
E E
77. In fact, during cross-examination, Mr Sadhwani did not
F F
suggest to PW3 that the defendant's statement was made involuntarily, nor
G did he point out to PW3 that the defendant had never actually made such a G
statement. I am of the view that the defendant only provided a concise
H H
summary of the incident that aligned with the statements given in both his
I cautioned statement and VRI. I find nothing improper in PW3 giving I
evidence relating to the defendant's initial response at the scene to the court.
J J
K 78. Mr. Sadhwani also argued that even if the Deceased managed K
to cross the road, he could not have accessed the pedestrian path on the
L L
opposite side due to the presence of railings, and therefore should not have
M been on that section of the road. I do not agree. It is to be noted that the M
pedestrian paths on both sides of the road at the location of the incident
N N
were not fully enclosed, allowing pedestrians the possibility to access the
O pedestrian path. Exhibit P5 (2)-(5) shows that some traffic lanes on both O
sides are unfenced, leaving gaps where pedestrians can cross the road and
P P
reach the pedestrian path.
Q Q
79. I find that if the Deceased successfully crossed the road to the
R R
westbound lane, there was actually a gap near the railings close to the bus
S stop that enabled him to return to the pedestrian path. This situation was S
the same as that of PW1, who had previously taken the same crossing route,
T T
U U
V V
- 35 -
A A
B B
crossing Ngau Tau Kok Road from the eastbound to the westbound lane
C before observing the Deceased. C
D D
80. After carefully considering the assertions made by the
E defendant in both the cautioned interview record and VRI, I find that they E
were unreasonable, exaggerated, and illogical. My reasons are as follows:-
F F
G (1) At the beginning, the defendant believed he had collided G
with an “object” and only realized after getting out of
H H
the Minibus that he had struck a person. The defendant
I also claimed that the tall truck ahead on the left blocked I
his view. If that were the case, it would not be logical
J J
for him to have seen the Deceased rushing out from the
K gap at the left-side railing50. K
L (2) If he only realized after getting out of the Minibus that L
he had hit someone, it makes little sense that he could
M M
describe the Deceased’s actions in such specific details,
N N
such as crossing the road with his head lowered, not
O
looking to either side, and appearing to run into the O
51
roadway in a suicidal manner .
P P
(3) The defendant stated that there was a tall truck in the
Q Q
left lane, about half a vehicle length ahead on his left,
R moving faster than his Minibus. If this account is R
accurate, it would be expected that the tall truck rather
S S
T T
50
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 155 to 162
51
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 266 to 277
U U
V V
- 36 -
A A
B B
than the Minibus, would have been the first to collide
C with the Deceased. C
D D
(4) Due to heavy traffic and concerns about pedestrians
E suddenly crossing, the defendant said he deliberately E
reduced his speed to slightly more than 20 kilometers
F F
per hour at the time of the incident. If his account were
G true, the defendant should have been able to stop the G
Minibus in time, and theoretically would not have
H H
collided with the Deceased, or at most only caused a
I minor collision, rather than the severe damage to the I
right front windshield of the Minibus52.
J J
81. After carefully considered all the evidence before me, I find
K K
his accounts were inconsistent, lacked credibility, and defied logic. I attach
L full weight to the inculpatory parts of his cautioned record of interview and L
VRI and reject those exculpatory parts and attached no weight to them. His
M M
denial was unreasonable and illogical. In particular, I reject his assertion
N N
that he did not stop in the second left lane of the eastbound carriageway to
O
let passengers off. I also do not accept his assertion that the tall truck in the O
first left lane was moving rather than stationary, nor do I accept his assertion
P P
that the Deceased suddenly dashed toward the lane where the Minibus was
Q traveling. His version of events appears to be a fabrication designed to Q
conceal the fact that he was not paying attention to the traffic ahead, and he
R R
deliberately constructed a narrative portraying the Deceased as recklessly
S and suicidally running into the road. S
T T
52
See Exhibit P3 (9-10), P3(14), P3(16) and P5(14)
U U
V V
- 37 -
A A
B B
82. I am fully alive that even though that I do not accept the
C defence case, it does not mean that I have to accept the prosecution case. C
The prosecution still bears the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
D D
E MY FINDINGS E
F F
83. Having considered all the evidence adduced by the
G prosecution, I make, inter alia, the following findings of fact which I am G
satisfied beyond reasonable doubt:-
H H
I (1) At the time of the incident, the streetlights and all I
vehicle headlights, including those of the Minibus, were
J J
illuminated.
K K
(2) The eastbound carriageway originally consisted of two
L L
lanes. At the point of collision, the lane markings
M separating the first and second left lanes were no longer M
visible on the road surface. However, the carriageway at
N N
that location was still wide enough to allow two vehicles
O to pass through53. O
P P
(3) Not all sections along both the eastbound and
Q westbound sides of Ngau Tau Kok Road are fully Q
fenced; some areas do not have railings installed.
R R
Pedestrians can return to the pedestrian path from the
S roadway through these gaps. S
T T
53
See Exhibit P3 (1)-(3) and P5 (1)-(2)
U U
V V
- 38 -
A A
B B
(4) Before the Minibus arrived, the Deceased was already
C walking slowly along the eastbound lanes of Ngau Tau C
Kok Road, moving from the innermost left lane toward
D D
the pedestrian path on the opposite westbound lane.
E E
(5) There was a stationary tall container truck in the
F innermost left eastbound lane at the Location. F
G G
(6) There was also a small private car in the innermost
H
eastbound lane, which was parked further away from the H
point of impact.
I I
J (7) When the Deceased was slowly walking to the dividing J
line between the inner and outer lanes of the eastbound
K K
carriageway, the Minibus appeared and stopped in the
L outer eastbound lane, which is not the lane adjacent to L
the pedestrian path.
M M
N (8) After the Defendant stopped the Minibus, a female N
passenger was observed alighting from the Minibus
O O
while the Deceased was directly in front of the Minibus,
P slowly walking in the direction of the westbound lane. P
Q (9) The front of the Minibus was approximately 1 to 2 Q
meters away from the Deceased's right side.
R R
S (10) Approximately ten seconds passed between halting to S
allow passengers to disembark and restarting the
T T
Minibus.
U U
V V
- 39 -
A A
B B
C (11) After dropping off the passengers, the defendant C
immediately started driving forward. During this time,
D D
the front right side of the Minibus struck the right side
E of the Deceased, causing the Deceased to fall to the E
ground.
F F
G ASSESSMENT OF THE DEFENDANT’S DRIVING MANNER G
H H
84. In determining whether the defendant's manner of driving met
I the criteria for dangerous driving, consideration has been given to the fact I
that the Deceased was crossing the road slowly at a non-designated
J J
pedestrian crossing at the time of the incident. I firmly bear in mind that as
K a reasonable driver, he would have to try his best to pay attention to the K
road conditions, but that does not mean he has to always be prepared for
L L
pedestrians who might be crossing the road at the wrong places. A
M reasonable driver is also entitled to presume that the pedestrians would, for M
their own safety, not cross the road at unsuitable places and when it would
N N
be dangerous to do so54.
O O
85. With this factor considered, it is of my view that the
P P
defendant's overall manner of driving was dangerous, based on the
Q following reasons:- Q
R R
(1) The defendant has over 30 years of experience driving
S minibuses. He was the minibus driver on the section of S
T T
54
See Paragraph 27 of the judgment of Yeung VP in HKSAR v Yeung Yiu Kin 楊曜鍵, CACC 198/2016
U U
V V
- 40 -
A A
B B
road where the incident occurred. On the day of the
C incident, he had already completed about five or six C
round trips on that route. He ought to have been well
D D
acquainted with the minibus route and the surrounding
E conditions. E
F F
(2) Even in his VRI, the defendant asserted that when
G passing through the Location, he anticipated that G
pedestrians might suddenly cross the road 55 . This
H H
demonstrates that he foresaw the possibility of
I pedestrians crossing there. I attach full weight to this I
assertion.
J J
(3) As shown in Exhibit P5 (2)-(6), both sides of Ngau Tau
K K
Kok Road have a bus stop, green minibus stop, school,
L public housing estate, and Ngau Tau Kok Road L
Playground. These features collectively indicate that the
M M
incident took place in a densely populated public area,
N N
rather than in an isolated rural area or on a highway. The
O
defendant should have foreseen the likelihood of O
pedestrians crossing the road at the Location.
P P
(4) While certain sections of the pedestrian pathway on
Q Q
each side are fenced, there are also areas with gaps
R where railings are absent, permitting pedestrians to R
access the pathway from the roadway in either direction.
S S
The defendant, who was assigned as the driver for that
T T
55
Exhibit P10 and 10A Counter 293
U U
V V
- 41 -
A A
B B
minibus route, was anticipated to have knowledge of the
C route, as well as the traffic and pedestrian conditions in C
the area.
D D
E (5) Prior to the arrival of the Minibus, the Deceased had E
proceeded to the dividing line separating the two
F F
eastbound lanes. He was under PW1’s observation for a
G minimum duration of one minute. G
H H
(6) The Deceased had clearly been visible on the eastbound
I roadway for some time, slowly walking from the first I
lane to the second lane, and then slowly proceeding
J J
from the second lane toward the westbound lanes.
K K
(7) Subsequently, the Minibus arrived at the location of the
L incident and stopped in the second left lane, L
approximately 1 to 2 meters in front of the Deceased, to
M M
allow passengers to disembark.
N N
(8) It is important to note that the defendant did not choose
O O
to stop the Minibus at the leftmost eastbound lane near
P the pedestrian path to let passengers off. Instead, he P
wrongly stopped the Minibus in the outer eastbound
Q Q
lane, for passengers to disembark. It is apparent that
R vehicles or motorcycles could pass through the leftmost R
eastbound lane at any time, posing a safety threat to
S S
Minibus passengers or other road users.
T T
U U
V V
- 42 -
A A
B B
(9) When the defendant stopped the Minibus, he must have
C noticed that the Deceased was walking on the roadway, C
especially when the Minibus headlights were on,
D D
visibility was clear, there were no obstacles blocking his
E view and the Minibus was only 1 to 2 meters in front of E
the Deceased.
F F
G (10) Given the pace at which the Deceased was walking, the G
defendant should have had ample time and opportunity
H H
to observe his presence. Even though there was a tall
I truck parked in the leftmost eastbound lane, it was I
stationary and not moving. I find its presence did not
J J
obstruct the defendant’s line of sight in any way.
K K
(11) The Deceased was directly in front of the Minibus and
L L
was by no means in the defendant's blind spot. The point
M of impact was at the right front of the Minibus56, which M
was sufficient to show that the Deceased had already
N N
crossed almost the entire front of the Minibus and
O reached the central dividing line between the eastbound O
and westbound lanes.
P P
Q (12) During the approximately 10 seconds when the Q
Deceased was walking in front of the Minibus while the
R R
defendant was letting passengers off, how did the
S defendant fail to notice the presence of the Deceased? S
T T
56
Exhibit P3(14)
U U
V V
- 43 -
A A
B B
(13) At the time of the incident, the lighting was sufficient,
C C
and all vehicles on the road, including the Minibus, had
D their headlights on. Even though the Deceased was D
wearing dark clothing, this did not prevent the
E E
defendant from clearly seeing the traffic conditions
F ahead. F
G G
(14) The visible crack on the right front windshield of the
H
Minibus and the bloodstains left by the Deceased on the H
ground and his sustaining multiple fractures indicated
I I
that there was a considerable force of impact when the
J Minibus struck the Deceased during the incident. J
K 86. From the entirety of the evidence, I have no difficulty in K
drawing the only reasonable and irresistible inference that the defendant
L L
stopped the Minibus at an unsuitable location to let passengers off to save
M time and for convenience, as the tall container truck and small private car M
were already parked in the leftmost eastbound lane. He stopped the Minibus
N N
in a lane that was not adjacent to the pedestrian path to allow passengers to
O disembark. During this time, his attention was directed toward assisting O
passengers with fare payment, resulting in a failure to adequately observe
P P
the road conditions ahead before proceeding forward and substantially
Q overlooking the presence of the Deceased. Had the defendant paid a proper Q
lookout, exercised due concentration, and remained attentive to the road
R R
conditions ahead, he should have observed the presence of the Deceased in
S sufficient time to apply his brakes, thereby avoiding the collision. S
T T
U U
V V
- 44 -
A A
B B
87. Considering the overall circumstances of the case, the
C defendant’s series of driving actions were sufficient to constitute dangerous C
driving, rather than merely a momentary lapse in attention. His driving fell
D D
far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it
E would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way E
would be dangerous. I have carefully considered everything said by Mr.
F F
Sadhwani both individually and collectively. Nothing said by him caused
G me to doubt the findings I have made. G
H H
CAUSE OF DEATH
I I
88. In HKSAR v Lam Ying Yu [2014] 2 HKLRD 895, Hon
J J
McWalters J stated the following in paragraph 77 of the judgment:-
K K
“The law relating to causation in respect of this offence is that
L an accused’s dangerous driving has to be a cause of the L
deceased’s death. It does not have to be the only or even the
substantial or major cause of the death, as long as it is something
M M
more than de minimus then it qualifies as a cause. (See R v Chiu
Tat Shing Dennis [1985] 2 HKC 487, following R v Hennigan
N [1971] 3 All ER 133.) “De Minimus” simply means that the N
dangerous driving was a cause of the accident and “something
more than a slight or trifling link.” See R v Kimsey [1996] Crim
O LR 35 ” O
P P
89. According to my findings, the Deceased was slowly crossing
Q the road in a normal manner before being struck by the Minibus. Even Q
considering the defendant’s account in the VRI, which suggested that the
R R
Deceased suddenly rushed onto the road in a manner akin to suicide (which
S was not accepted by the court), I find the defence assertion that the S
Deceased may have died from a heart attack rather than as a result of the
T T
defendant’s driving to be entirely unfounded and without any merit.
U U
V V
- 45 -
A A
B B
C 90. Based on the Medical and Autopsy Reports57, and taking into C
account the evidence before me, I have no trouble in finding that the death
D D
of the Deceased was caused by him being struck by the offside front of the
E Minibus, which caused the Deceased to fall down, which tragically resulted E
in multiple injuries, from which the Deceased could not recover. In other
F F
words, it was the defendant’s driving that caused the death of the Deceased.
G I give full weight to the contents of the Autopsy Report prepared by PW4. G
I accept her evidence that the autopsy and pathological tests showed no
H H
signs of myocardial infarction (heart attack) in the Deceased.
I I
91. I am satisfied that the direct cause of death of the Deceased
J was from multiple injuries resulting from the collision made by the J
defendant.
K K
L CONCLUSION L
M M
92. I am satisfied on all the evidence before me that the
N N
prosecution has proved each of the ingredients of the offence beyond
O
reasonable doubt the defendant drove dangerously causing death of the O
deceased and I convict the defendant accordingly.
P P
Q Q
R R
( Ivy Chui )
Deputy District Judge
S S
T T
57
Exhibit P7, P8 and P15
U U
V V