HKSAR v. CHOW TIN SHING (周天勝) CACC 85/2007

S’s words:-

We should have heard many cases that defendants were charged of dangerous driving causing death and finally sent to prisons.

For the appeal against conviction for Charge 1 (that suggested that the Applicant endangered the life of his own crew), the conviction was quashed without surprise. In fact, the breach of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea did not automatically suggested that the Applicant was endangering the life of his own crew. The Court of Appeal used the words:-

We are not not sure why the judge referred to the prosecution having “proved beyond reasonable doubt the defendant’s conduct in not keeping a proper lookout”.

Then leaving the sentencing for Charge 2.

The Court refused to rely motor vehicles offences to consider the sentencing. In no doubt, we do not have much case authorities as reference for the sentencing of such charges pursuant to Section 72 of the Shipping and Port Control Ordinance. My personal view is that, motor vehicles offences are relevant, but that was not accepted by the Court of Appeal.

Fortunately, the Court of Appeal also agreed that those cases involving high speed chases were distinguished. The Applicant performed no deliberately dangerous maneouvres but a life was lost. That was the reason why the sentence of the Applicant was reduced to 17 months but not any further.

If there was no loss of life but injuries only, would the Applicant be sent to prison for only 12 months or even shorter period? I feel some doubt on whether immediate custodial sentence would be imposed if that was the situation.

--- quote from judgment ---

Date of Judgment : 22 October 2007

On 13 March 2007, the applicant was convicted after trial before Her Honour Judge Chua in the District Court of two offences of endangering the safety of others at sea, contrary to section 72 of the Shipping and Port Control Ordinance, Cap. 313 (“the Ordinance”), being Charges 1 and 2 respectively. In respect of the offence the subject of Charge 1, the applicant was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and in respect of the offence the subject of Charge 2, to two years’ imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently, resulting in a totality of sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

The applicant has been granted leave to appeal out of time his conviction in respect of the 1st charged offence. He seeks leave also to appeal the sentences imposed for both offences.

Appeal against conviction for Charge 1

In all those circumstances, independently of any breach of the Regulations by the applicant, it is difficult to see how the prosecution on the evidence before the court had proven to the requisite standard that the applicant’s actions in failing to alter course so as to leave the tug to port had created a real risk of danger.

Accordingly, we grant leave to appeal against conviction so far as the 1st charged offence is concerned, treat the hearing of the application as the hearing of the appeal and allow the appeal. The applicant’s conviction of the 1st charged offence is quashed and his sentence in respect of that conviction is set aside.

Appeal against sentence

Mr Ross has provided us with a number of authorities related to sentences imposed in respect of motor vehicle offences, but we do not think those of direct application to a sentence imposed pursuant to section 72 of the Ordinance. As a matter of general principle, any sentence imposed pursuant to a section 72 offence will primarily depend upon the degree of danger created by the acts of the offender in the circumstances as they existed at the time of the offence. Those circumstances will vary enormously. The weather, degree of visibility, sea state, speed of vessels, manouvres performed and other factors pertaining to those circumstances will often be relevant.

In cases involving high speed chases by police launches of sampans carrying illegal immigrants in Hong Kong waters, sentences of 2½ years and three years’ imprisonment after trial have been approved by this court : see A.G. v. Chan Siu Yun (1995) 2 HKCLR 223 and R. v. Sze Yui, unreported, CACC 348 of 1995. In the latter case, a subsequent similar offence by the same applicant led to a starting point at the maximum of four years’ imprisonment being endorsed : see HKSAR v. Sze Yu,unreported, CACC 143 of 2003. It should be noted in these cases, however, that the acts of endangerment were deliberately reckless and of great risk to the safety of the passengers in the sampans and to a lesser extent to the crew of the pursuing police launches.

We do not think the same considerations apply in the circumstances of the present case. The applicant performed no deliberately dangerous maneouvres. He proceeded at the barge’s maximum speed, but at a speed well within the limit for the fairway. It is true he had elected to proceed on the wrong side of the fairway and in the vicinity of possible inshore traffic in circumstances where he knew his forward vision was reduced and that the applicant’s act brought about a person’s death. But it was not a situation where the applicant in a calculated way risked the lives and safety of others such as was so in the above cited cases. Indeed, immediately after the collision the applicant stopped and contacted the authorities in a successful attempt to bring assistance to the scene. Marine police came and rescued the injured son of the deceased. This is to be distinguished from the callous indifference to life displayed by the defendants in the cited cases. The fact that in those cases there was no loss of life is a matter of pure chance.

Given the maximum term for the sentence of four years’ imprisonment, the contrast between the applicant’s conduct and the conduct of those involved in intentionally risking the lives of others, should have been given greater recognition in the sentence imposed in this case.

For these reasons, we consider the sentence imposed to have been manifestly excessive. In our view in the circumstances of this offence a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment after trial was called for. There was some mitigation available for the applicant given his clear record and his immediate calling of assistance to the scene, and that sentence should be discounted to 17 months’ imprisonment. We do not regard the applicant’s relative inexperience as a master of such vessels to be a mitigating factor in the circumstances of this case.