HKSAR v. BABBS WILLIAM JAMES

DCCC 979/2022 [2025] HKDC 634 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 979 OF 2022 ------------------------------------- HKSAR v BABBS WILLIAM JAMES ------------------------------------- Before: Deputy District Judge Casewell Date: 26 March 2025 Present: Mr Mcguinniety Edward L, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR Mr Martin Hui, Senior Counsel leading Ms Tracy Chu T S and Mr Kasper Fan, instructed by Hon & Co, for the defendant Offence: Causing death by dangerous driving （危險駕駛引致他人死亡） ----------------------------------------- REASONS FOR SENTENCE ----------------------------------------- The defendant, Mr William Babbs, has been convicted after trial with one offence of causing death by dangerous driving. Details of the reasons for my conviction of the defendant have already been given to them and I do not propose to repeat them at this stage. I note in passing, the defendant had made a limited admission in respect of this matter to the offence of careless driving. I do also note that that limited admission made the case easier to conduct and was conducted more economically because of that and enabled the issues to be narrowed down. Now the mitigation advanced on behalf of Mr Babbs is extensive. He is presently 64 years. He is of clear record. He has no previous driving conviction. He is employed and involved in a company called Kin Seng Industrial. He is a part-owner of that company and is heavily involved in its operations. I have letters from employees of that company, also from the other owner showing the value of Mr Babbs to that operation and his clearly good working record for that company. The defendant is, as I have said, heavily involved in its operations and the company would be severely prejudiced by any imprisonment of the defendant. The defendant, Mr Babbs, is married, he lives with his wife and grown up daughter. He is the sole breadwinner of that family. As could be expected at his age, both him and his wife suffer from heart-related conditions, the defendant has cardiovascular disease and another disease described as hypercholesterolemia. His wife has anomalous RCD. They are both under treatment in Queen Mary Hospital, I believe, and are outpatients there. The defendant has been an active contributor to charity for many years, primarily through his role at the Rotary Club of Hong Kong of which he has been a past president. He has donated sums of money to children’s charities including cancer charities. The defendant is well- regarded by his friends, family and business contacts who speak to his generosity, integrity and character. The defendant has expressed his regard and sorrow for this incident. The defendant clearly is a man of good or high character who has been deeply affected by this accident and he has lived under this cloud for some 3 years. These are all matters I take into consideration when determining the appropriate sentence. The legal background is as follows: The offence carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment together with a 5 year disqualification from driving. The approach to sentencing can be found from various cases such as the case of Secretary for Justice v Chu Wing Yin Christine [2021] HKLRD 77 which sets out that the defendant’s culpability is the dominant factor in sentencing and that a custodial sentence, that being an immediate custodial sentence, is the normal sentence for this offence. Reference is often made to the case of Cooksley, that is R v Cooksley [2003] 2 Cr App R 18. This is an English case. It sets out the factors for the court to consider and suggests starting points for various levels of culpability. They are not, however, adopted as clear sentencing guidelines in Hong Kong but they are instructive and informative. I would classify the defendant’s culpability in this area as taking part in a course of action that led to a dangerous error of judgment, and the death of another person. There are no other aggravating factors. The overall starting point or range of sentencing for an offence such as that committed by the defendant would be between 12 to 18 months’ imprisonment. I have considered the defendant’s mitigation in detail. I do not, however, find that although the defendant has compelling mitigation, he does not fall into the category of exceptional circumstances that would justify the court in refraining to impose the immediate custodial sentence. The defendant’s mitigation, namely his good character, his charitable works, his health condition, do justify, however, deduction from any starting point that I determine. Having regard to this defendant’s culpability, I consider a starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment appropriate. I will deduct that by 3 months to represent the mitigating factors in this case. As I said, that sentence will be one of 12 months’ imprisonment and that is the sentence that will be imposed. The defendant is accordingly also disqualified from driving for 5 years. He must also take and complete a Driving Improvement Course within 3 months of the expiry of the period of disqualification period if he wishes to retain his licence. So in summary, it is a 12 month sentence of imprisonment, a 5 years disqualification from driving and the defendant must take and complete a Driving Improvement Course. ( Casewell ) Deputy District Judge