【本報訊】04年因小巴賽車爭客，在北角英皇道釀成兩死17傷的嚴重車禍，涉案兩名小巴司機去年分別被判監兩年及兩年半，律政司認為刑期太輕申請覆核。上訴庭法官昨斥二人為爭客而罔顧乘客安全，其自私及缺德行徑實可控以誤殺罪。二人的刑期終被大幅增加至控罪的最高刑罰，亦即入獄5年及停牌12年，為近年案件中最長的停牌期。
次被告案發後駕駛村巴
上訴庭首席法官馬道立昨在判決中指，如果司機駕駛態度不善，可以對其他道路使用者造成極大危險，所以在處理此類案件時，必需判以具阻嚇性的刑罰。上訴庭對於次被告在意外前有25次交通定罪紀錄感到震驚，更質疑為何在今次意外發生後次被告仍獲聘用在大嶼山駕駛村巴。
律政司代表在庭上指，有關方面現正就危險駕駛導致他人死亡罪名之最高刑罰作出檢討，並打算將刑罰加重。法官對此表示贊同，並建議需訂立審核程序，以避免駕駛紀錄太差的司機駕駛公共交通工具，危害他人安全。
官稱可被起訴誤殺罪
馬官續指，原審法官採納兩年半的判刑起點太輕，並認為首被告潘永基（32歲）及次被告廖振邦（26歲）因爭客而導致車禍，顯出他們完全將乘客以及其他道路使用者的安全置諸不理。「兩名被告蓄意危害他人的安全，其鹵莽的駕駛態度令人震驚……事實上他們的行為已可被起訴誤殺罪，屆時的監禁刑期定比現時的5年為長。」
法官指，二人其實並無顯出足夠悔意，在考慮案情及二人的罪責後，認為應判以控罪的最高刑罰。二人現就危險駕駛導致他人死亡罪名入獄5年，因賽車致他人身體受傷罪則入獄兩年，兩罪刑期同期執行。另外，停牌期限亦由原本兩年改為12年。次被告因不滿刑期比首被告重而申請減刑，雖然刑期終不減反加，但已服刑近一年的二人聽聞判決後並不感詫異，首被告一直垂低頭，顯得一臉悔疚。
高速並排衝燈行駛
新大嶼山巴士公司行政經理黃華指次被告並非公司前員工。就今次法官提出的意見，公司會檢討招聘司機措施，由過去要求應徵者申報過去駕駛紀錄，改為必須出示由運輸署發出的駕駛紀錄證明文件，並會沿用公司定期更新現職司機駕駛紀錄的方法，司機每隔3個月，必須將有效駕駛執照給公司影印存檔。民建聯建議當局從速檢視現行涉及危險駕駛的刑罰是否過輕，以收阻嚇作用，減少交通意外的發生。
車禍發生於04年10月22日清晨5時許，兩名被告駕駛的紅色小巴沿北角英皇道高速並排行駛，除互相爬頭外亦連番衝燈。根據車上乘客證供，首被告途中曾衝10盞紅燈，次被告亦衝6盞。當駛至健康東街交界時，首被告的小巴撞向一輛剛駛出的的士，再撞向次被告的小巴至翻側，釀成兩死十七傷慘劇。
案件編號： CAAR2/06， CACC536/05
CAAR2/2006
& CACC536/2005
CAAR2/2006
IN THE
HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG
KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF
APPEAL
APPLICATION
FOR REVIEW NO. 2 OF 2006
(ON
APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 422 OF 2005)
______________________
BETWEEN
SECRETARY
FOR JUSTICE Appellant
and
POON
WING KAY (潘永基) 1st
Respondent
LIU
CHUN PONG (廖振邦) 2nd Respondent
______________________
CACC536/2005
IN THE
HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG
KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF
APPEAL
CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO. 536 OF 2005
(ON
APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 422 OF 2005)
______________________
BETWEEN
HKSAR
Respondent
and
LIU
CHUN PONG (廖振邦) Applicant
______________________
Before :
Hon Ma CJHC, Stuart-Moore VP & Stock JA in Court
Date of
Hearing : 3 November 2006
Date of
Judgment : 3 November 2006
___________________
J U D G
M E N T
___________________
Hon Ma
CJHC (giving the judgment of the Court) :
CAAR2/2006
1. On 13 December 2005, the Defendants Poon Wing
Kay (the 1st Defendant) and Liu Chun Pong (the 2nd Defendant) were convicted
after trial in the District Court of the offences of causing death by dangerous
driving, contrary to section 36(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap.374 (“the
RTO”) and of causing harm to persons by racing vehicles, contrary to section 33
of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap.212 (“the OAPO”).
2. Sections 36(1), (2), (4), (6) and (7) of the
RTO state as follows : -
“36. Causing
death by dangerous driving
(1)
A person who causes the death of another
person by driving a motor vehicle on a road dangerously commits an offence and
is liable -
(a) on conviction on indictment to a fine at level
5 and to imprisonment for 5 years;
(b) on summary conviction to a fine at level 4 and
to imprisonment for 2 years.
(2)
A person convicted of an offence under
subsection (1) shall be disqualified -
(a) for a period of not less than 2 years in the
case of a first conviction; and
(b) for a period of not less than 3 years in the
case of a second or subsequent conviction,
unless the court or magistrate for special
reasons orders that the person be disqualified for a shorter period or that the
person not be disqualified.
(3)
…
(4)
A person is to be regarded as driving
dangerously within the meaning of subsection (1) if -
(a) the way he drives falls far below what would
be expected of a competent and careful driver; and
(b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful
driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
(5)
…
(6)
For the purposes of subsections (4) and
(5), ‘dangerous’ refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious
damage to property.
(7)
For the purposes of subsections (4) and
(5), in determining what would be expected of, or obvious to, a competent and
careful driver in a particular case, regard shall be had to all the
circumstances of the case including -
(a) the nature, condition and use of the road
concerned at the material time;
(b)
the amount of traffic which is actually on
the road concerned at the material time or which might reasonably be expected
to be on the road concerned at the material time; and
(c) the circumstances (including the physical
condition of the accused) of which the accused could be expected to be aware
and any circumstances (including the physical condition of the accused) shown
to have been within the knowledge of the accused.”
3. Section 33 of the OAPO states : -
“33.
Driver of carriage, etc., injuring person by furious driving
Any person who, having the charge
of any carriage or vehicle, by wanton or furious driving or racing or other
wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, does or causes to be done any bodily
harm to any person shall be guilty of an offence triable either summarily or
upon indictment, and shall be liable to imprisonment for 2 years.”
4. On 22 December 2005, H H Judge Whaley
sentenced the 1st Defendant to 2 years’ imprisonment for the dangerous driving
charge and 15 months’ imprisonment for the racing charge (both sentences to run
concurrently). He was also disqualified
from driving for a period of 2 years under section 36(2) of the RTO. As for the 2nd Defendant, he was sentenced to
concurrent terms of imprisonment of 2½ years for the dangerous charge and 15
months for the racing charge. Like the
1st Defendant, he was disqualified from driving for a period of 2 years.
5. The Secretary for Justice applies for a
review of these sentences under section 81A of the Criminal Procedure
Ordinance, Cap.221 on the basis they are manifestly inadequate and wrong in
principle. The 2nd Defendant has also separately
sought leave to appeal against sentence, having earlier abandoned an
application for leave to appeal against conviction.
6. The offences all relate to the events that
took place at about 5:46 am on 22 October 2004, at the junction of King’s Road
and Healthy Street East in North Point (“the Healthy Street junction”). There, a red-topped public light bus (GU964)
driven by the 1st Defendant (“the 1st Defendant’s vehicle”) collided first with
a taxi (KM3673) which had been crossing the junction and then with another
red-topped public light bus (JL407) driven by the 2nd Defendant (“the 2nd
Defendant’s vehicle”) who was overtaking the 1st Defendant’s vehicle at the
time. The 2nd Defendant’s vehicle
overturned. The 1st Defendant’s vehicle
was carrying some 8 or 9 passengers, the 2nd Defendant’s vehicle 14 passengers
and the taxi, 3 passengers. The result
of this accident was that 2 passengers in the 2nd Defendant’s vehicle (a man
aged 58 and a woman aged 23) suffered multiple injuries from which they died
later the same day and 17 other persons were injured (being the driver of the
taxi, a passenger in the taxi, 3 passengers in the 1st Defendant’s vehicle and
12 passengers in the 2nd Defendant’s vehicle).
The injuries ranged from bruising to fractures and medical attention was
required.
7. This was by any standard a terrible accident
with tragic consequences and one that words cannot adequately describe. The photographs we have seen depicting the
aftermath showed extensive damage to both public light buses and the taxi. The central divide along King’s Road was
ploughed into by the 1st Defendant’s vehicle.
There was rubble everywhere : damaged bollards, bumpers, broken glass,
railings etc.
8. The events leading up to the accident were
essentially as follows (we have taken them from the Judge’s Reasons for Verdict
and the testimony of the witnesses described in the Reasons; the Judge largely
accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses) : -
(1) Both
public light buses were travelling in a westerly direction on King’s Road in
the early morning of the day in question, both picking up passengers along the
way. At some stage, they began racing
against one another in an attempt to compete for passengers.
(2) One
of the passengers in the 1st Defendant’s vehicle (one Mak Wing Kan who was a
taxi driver by profession – PW3) told of the 1st Defendant driving very fast
along King’s Road, speeding past traffic lights regardless of the colour of
them. He told of at least two sets of
traffic lights that were red when the 1st Defendant’s vehicle passed them (this
not including the lights at the Healthy Street junction) : those at the
junction of King’s Road with Greig Road and with Tong Chong Street. He described his state of mind when
approaching the Healthy Street junction in this way : “the speed of the vehicle
was so fast that your brain could not see anything.” Mr Mak described the 1st Defendant’s manner
of driving in this way : he simply did not care and ignored traffic
lights. Mr Mak (like the other 7 or 8
passengers in the 1st Defendant’s vehicle we assume) was very nervous, holding
onto the seat in front of him. Whenever
the 1st Defendant picked up passengers, he would sometimes stop in the middle
of the road.
(3) Another
passenger in the 1st Defendant’s vehicle (Lau Kwok Leung –PW4) confirmed the
aggressive way in which the 1st Defendant drove. He was in fierce competition for passengers
and would attempt to block other vehicles if they were intending to pick any
up. Like Mr Mak, Mr Lau told of the 1st
Defendant ignoring red lights and simply rushing past them.
(4) Mr
Chung Kam Fuk (PW5) was a passenger in the 2nd Defendant’s vehicle. He is a bus driver. He described how soon after he boarded, the
2nd Defendant was driving at high speed rushing through the red lights at the
junction of King’s Road and Tong Chong Street.
After that junction, he noticed how another public light bus (the 1st
Defendant’s vehicle) cut into the lane on which the 2nd Defendant’s vehicle was
travelling, causing the 2nd Defendant to brake.
The two public light buses then began to race each other. He described how at the junction where the
North Point Primary School was located, both public light buses charged through
the red lights at high speed. Mr Chung
said he felt scared, he had the feeling that the situation was very dangerous
and that an accident could occur anytime.
(5) Another
passenger (Kwok Ka Lok – PW6) talked about how the 2nd Defendant overtook
vehicles at high speed. He referred to
the 1st and 2nd Defendants’ vehicles trying to overtake each other. After the junction at the primary school, he
noticed how the two vehicles were racing close to one another. His testimony was supported by that of
another passengers, Ma Ki Chau (PW8).
(6) As
both vehicles approached the Healthy Street junction, the 2nd Defendant began
to overtake the 1st Defendant’s vehicle.
Thus, far from slowing down at this junction, the 2nd Defendant in fact
accelerated. And for his part, the 1st
Defendant, again instead of slowing down, also speeded up in an attempt to keep
up with the 2nd Defendant’s vehicle.
This junction was controlled by traffic lights and at the time both
vehicles went into the junction at the intersection with Healthy Street East,
these lights were showing red. The
lights had not just turned red : they had clearly been red for sometime because
a pedestrian who was attempting to cross King’s Road at the junction, Mr Tse
Yun Choi (PW1), told of the pedestrian lights at the junction flashing
green. Evidently, both public light
buses approached the Healthy Street junction in the same way as previous
junctions : the intention was simply to ignore the red signal.
(7) Just
as both vehicles went into the intersection with Healthy Street East, a taxi
slipped into King’s Road from that street.
The lights regulating the traffic from Healthy Street East were on
green. The driver of the taxi was Wong
Wai Hung (PW2). He had almost reached the
second lane of King’s Road (a three-lane highway going west at that point) when
he heard loud braking and he saw a public light bus (the 1st Defendant’s
vehicle) rushing at him at great speed.
His thought at that time was, as he put it, “I am doomed.”
(8) The
1st Defendant’s vehicle crashed into the right front of the taxi and then
veered right colliding with the 2nd Defendant’s vehicle. Following this, the 2nd Defendant’s vehicle
flipped over to its side. The 1st
Defendant’s vehicle remained upright but ploughed into the central divide.
(9) The
scientific evidence showed that both vehicles were travelling at high
speed. The estimate was that the 1st
Defendant was travelling at 51 kph just before he started to brake hard
(causing skid marks). The estimate of
the various witnesses of the speed of the two vehicles as they raced along
King’s Road ranged between 50 to 70 kph.
The evidence also showed that the traffic lights at the Healthy Street
junction were in working order at the time of the accident.
9. The Judge found both Defendants guilty under
section 36(1) of the RTO and section 33 of the OAPO. In his Reasons for Sentence, he described the
driving of both Defendants as “exceptionally dangerous driving” and the act of
accelerating into the Healthy Street junction as “absolutely inexcusable”. These were not, in our view, exaggerations.
10. In sentencing the Defendants, the Judge
adopted a starting point of 2½ years for the dangerous driving charges for both
Defendants. He found, as we have, great
assistance in the English case of R v Cooksley [2003] 3 All ER 40. There, the Court of Appeal laid down
sentencing guidelines for the offences of dangerous driving and careless
driving causing death when under the influence of drink or drugs. While admittedly the sentencing guidelines
for the offence of dangerous driving causing death in that case cannot be used
in Hong Kong, not least because the maximum sentence in the United Kingdom for
the offence was at the time of that case 10 years (now 14 years) rather than 5,
a number of general principles found in the judgment of Lord Woolf CJ can be
stated as being equally applicable in Hong Kong (we also add some observations
of our own) : -
(1) In
most cases of dangerous driving, it will be obvious to the offender that his
driving was dangerous and he therefore deserves to be punished accordingly : -
at page 45j (paragraph 11). This is
important to bear in mind because, while it may be true in some instances not
to treat violators of traffic laws as true criminals, nevertheless for offences
such as dangerous driving causing death, the offender may not necessarily be
seen in quite such a benevolent light.
(2) Where
death results from dangerous driving, it is obvious that grave distress will be
caused to the family of the deceased : - at page 46a (paragraph 11). The impact on people’s lives ought to be
taken into account when sentencing.
(3) It
is important for courts to drive home the message that there may sometimes be
extremely grave consequences flowing from acts of dangerous driving and it is
therefore necessary to have in mind a deterrent effect when sentencing in many
cases involving dangerous driving : - at page 46c-e (paragraph 11). A motor vehicle, many may often forget, when
not driven to requisite standards, can kill or maim. The standards required by the law for
motorists found in the road traffic legislation and elsewhere are there to
ensure that all who can come into contact with motor vehicles (whether fellow
motorists, passengers or pedestrians) are safe and that their lives are not
endangered.
(4) While
a list can be drawn up of aggravating and mitigating factors, a sentencing
court must however look at the overall circumstances and the overall
culpability of the offender. In
assessing the overall seriousness of a crime, culpability is often the dominant
factor : - at page 47b (paragraph 14).
It is not a case of counting the number of aggravating or mitigating
factors and then arriving by mechanical means at the relevant sentence. Sentencing is not quite that exact an
exercise and courts must be sufficiently nimble to take into account the
overall picture in order to arrive at an appropriate sentence. In some cases, the fact that only some
aggravating factors exist, but not others (such as in the present case), may
still bring the case into a very serious category.
(5) One
major factor to be considered as an aggravating factor justifying a heavy
sentence is where a person has driven with selfish disregard for the safety of
other road users or of his passengers (or, we would add, of pedestrians) or
with a degree of recklessness : - at page 46f-d (paragraph 12).
11. In his Reasons for Sentence, the Judge
referred to the headnote in Cooksley which sets out the sentencing guidelines
in England for various scenarios involving dangerous driving causing
death. Some 16 aggravating factors are
enumerated together with some mitigating factors. He then listed out the aggravating and
mitigating factors in the present case to arrive at a starting point of 2½
years for each Defendant. The Judge then
took some mitigating factors further into account to reduce the starting point
by 6 months as far as the 1st Defendant was concerned. He was therefore sentenced to 2 years’
imprisonment on the dangerous driving charge.
For the 2nd Defendant, the Judge found there were no mitigating factors
and accordingly did not reduce the starting point of 2½ years.
12. For the racing charge, both Defendants were
sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment.
Both were also disqualified from driving for a period of 2 years.
13. In our judgment, the sentences imposed by the
Judge on the Defendants were manifestly inadequate and wrong in principle. We are of the view that for both Defendants,
the maximum term of 5 years’ imprisonment should be imposed for the dangerous
driving charges and the maximum term of 2 years be imposed for the racing
charge. We are also of the view that
both Defendants should be disqualified for a period of 12 years each. Our reasons for revising the sentences are as
follows :
(1) The
conduct of both Defendants as outlined earlier showed an utter and selfish
disregard, if not contempt, for the safety and well-being of all who came into
contact with their driving : their own passengers, other passengers and other
road users. Driving through red lights
as if the lights did not exist and as if they were the only users of the road,
racing against one another in an attempt to grab passengers, no attempts made
to slow down at junctions (in fact quite the opposite) were all indicative of
this.
(2) The
Defendants’ conduct was without doubt reckless and in the words of the Judge
“prolonged, persistent and deliberate”.
These were not momentary lapses of judgment. The evidence indicated that the 1st Defendant
went through about 10 sets of traffic lights and the 2nd Defendant, 6 sets
(including those at the Healthy Street junction) without stopping or slowing
down.
(3) The
consequences of this driving, which both Defendants must have known was
dangerous, were tragic. Two persons lost
their lives, many more were injured. One
can only shudder when thinking that the consequences could have been far
worse. The pedestrian, Mr Tse (PW1), was
about to cross the westbound lane of King’s Road to catch a tram and had he
done so even though the pedestrian lights were in his favour, he would have
sustained extremely serious injuries.
(4) The
Defendants were no doubt in a rush but in doing what they did, they
deliberately took the risk not just of being prosecuted for breaching traffic
laws, but, far worse, of endangering people’s lives.
(5) The
standard of driving of these Defendants was appalling and in our view totally
unacceptable and must rightly be condemned.
The safety and well-being of members of the public in Hong Kong are
paramount and the public must be adequately protected from the type of driving
the two Defendants displayed. It should
not be forgotten just how many of the witnesses testified to the very real fear
they felt at the time for their lives.
In a letter from the 2nd Defendant addressed to the court yesterday, he
denies “absolutely” that he was risking any lives by racing. We disagree : he and the 1st Defendant were
doing exactly that.
(6) The
traffic offence records of the Defendants are also appalling. The 1st Defendant has a record since 1996 of
having been convicted of 10 traffic offences, one of which was committed after
the present offence. Four were for
careless driving. He has been
disqualified twice. The 2nd Defendant’s
record is far worse. Since November
2002, there have been 27 convictions for traffic offences including 9 for
failing to comply with traffic signals.
Two of the convictions for failing to comply with traffic signals were
committed after the present accident when he was driving a bus in Lantau. His record is truly appalling.
(7) Additionally,
it must not be forgotten that the Defendants were each driving vehicles for the
carriage of members of the public. Such
professional drivers must be acutely aware of the necessity to be safe and not
to risk people’s lives and safety. This
provides yet another aggravating feature in the present case.
(8) In
our view, what the Defendants did come within the worst category of the type of
offences under consideration. In no
other case cited to us have the facts been so bad. The utter disregard for the lives and safety
of others may well have attracted manslaughter charges where upon conviction,
sentences in excess of 5 years might well have been imposed. Be that as it may, although we suppose worse
facts than the present case can conceivably exist, this does not mean that maximum
sentences should not be imposed. It is
to the category or type of seriousness or culpability that the court looks when
sentencing.
(9) In
terms of the culpability of both Defendants, they are exactly the same. The periods of disqualification reflect the
seriousness of the offences and their poor previous records. It is a disturbing fact that persons such as
the 2nd Defendant in this case find themselves in a position where they are
enabled to drive public transport vehicles despite a simply appalling driving
record. Before this accident this
particular driver had accumulated since November 2002 along over 25 driving
violations including a large number of failing to have regard to traffic
signals, and indeed after this accident, as we have earlier mentioned, was
still driving public buses and committing 2 further offences of failing to
comply with traffic signs. The fact that
this can occur should be a matter of grave public concern and we are comforted by
Mr Leung’s assurance that he will raise in the appropriate quarters what
measures exist, if any, to screen those who are permitted to drive public
vehicles.
14. In our view the Judge erred by failing to
consider the gravity of the overall circumstances of the offences. In some parts of his Reasons for Sentence, he
seemed to regard as important the fact that only some of the aggravating
features mentioned in Cooksley, but not others, existed and this perhaps might
explain his low starting points. However,
once account is taken overall of those aggravating features and other
circumstances we have earlier identified, it is clear that the present offences
are in the most serious category and that maximum sentences ought to be
imposed. The Judge was also wrong to
reduce the 1st Defendant’s sentence by 6 months on account of his remorse and
good character. In the circumstances of
the present case, these factors are of little or no weight. Additionally, we have to say that the
evidence of remorse is thin.
15. It follows then that the application for
review by the Secretary for Justice is granted and there is to be substituted
the following sentences : -
(1)
For the offences of dangerous driving causing death, there should be
substituted a sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment for each Defendant.
(2)
For the racing offence, there should be substituted a sentence of 2
years for each Defendant.
(3)
Both sentences are to run concurrently.
(4)
Each Defendant is to be disqualified from driving for a period of 12
years on the dangerous driving charges.
16. We have considered whether in the light that
the present proceedings are by way of review, there should be a discount in the
sentences to be imposed. However, in the
circumstances, we do not feel it is appropriate to make any allowance at all.
17. This case is not only illustrative of a
prolonged and wicked course of driving by drivers with a combined number of
about 24 passengers on board but is illustrative also of the need to deter
those who, in the pursuit of commercial gain, or indeed for any other reason,
place at risk the lives of members of the public who entrust their safety to
drivers of public transport vehicles. A
remarkable feature of the mitigation advanced in this case on behalf of one of
the drivers was that, as it was put : “competing is part and parcel of the
job”. That may be so but the sooner it
is realized that such competition cannot be tolerated if it is at the risk of
passengers, the better; and we say at once that in any case of dangerous driving
the fact that the driver is driving a public transport vehicle is an
aggravating feature and that traffic violations in such circumstances will be
met with no sympathy whatsoever by the courts.
18. Finally, we were informed by Mr David Leung
(for the Secretary for Justice) that consideration is now being given to
increasing the maximum sentence for the offence of dangerous driving causing
death. In our view, given the existence
of cases such as the present, there must be considerable merit in this course.
CACC536/2005
19. The 2nd Defendant’s application for leave to
appeal against sentence, for the reasons just given, is dismissed.
(Geoffrey
Ma)
Chief
Judge, High Court (Michael
Stuart-Moore)
Vice-President
(Frank Stock)
Justice
of Appeal
Mr David
C Leung of the Department of Justice for the Appellant in CAAR2/2006 & the
Respondent in CACC536/2005
Mr
Graeme A Mackay, instructed by Messrs B Mak & Co for the 1st Defendant (1st
Respondent in CAAR2/2006)
Mr John
Haynes, instructed by Messrs C K Mok & Co for the 2nd Defendant (2nd
Respondent in CAAR2/2006 and the Applicant in CACC536/2005)
Leave to
appeal to Court Final Appeal refused: see FAMC57/2006 dated 12 January 2007
法庭：小巴亡命車禍兩司機賠599萬
【本報訊】兩輛小巴七年前為爭客於北角英皇道上演「亡命大鬥車」，最終釀成兩死十七傷的慘劇。其中一名經營菜檔的男死者遺屬早前入稟高院，向兩名肇事小巴司機民事索償八百萬元，兩名司機承認賠償責任但爭議金額，案件早前在高院經審訊後，法庭裁定兩人共要賠償死者遺屬五百九十九萬元及利息現約六十一歲的女原告馮順嬋（譯音），是男死者龍啟漢（五十八歲）的遺孀及遺產執行人。
被告是廖振邦及潘永基，二人早前因危險駕駛致他人死亡罪被判囚，最終被上訴庭加刑至各判囚五年及停牌十二年。
判詞指死者早年與兄長經營菜檔，九九年起在中西區獨資經營，主要供應蔬果予中西區及蘭桂坊的食肆。死者育有一子一女（現年卅九歲及廿二歲），每月給妻三萬元家用。死者於上環有一個貨倉的一半股權及在港島區有兩個收租物業。
另付利息及訟費
法官判決指菜檔的年營業額有近四百萬元，扣除開支每年應約有八十萬元收入，以死者原可工作至七十歲計算，收入損失約五百卅一萬元，另加投資收入約四十五萬元；還有已同意的費用包括喪親之痛的十五萬元及八萬元葬禮開支，最終裁定二人共需賠償五百九十九萬元、另付利息及訟費。
案件編號：HCPI 896/2007
《道路交通條例》中第36條「危險駕駛引致他人死亡」的最高刑罰為監禁5年，首犯司機會被取消駕駛資格至少2年，但條例並無停牌上限。
沒有留言:
張貼留言