Page:HKSAR v. Tong Ying Kit (Verdict).pdf/44

-44- G. Assessment of Evidence

G.1 The Defendant’s driving

127. We accept the evidence that at each of Checklines 1 to 4, police officers had given lawful instructions to the Defendant to stop his motorcycle, whether by way of shouting loudly, using a loudhailer or by hand gestures, which instructions were all ignored by the Defendant. We find that the Defendant could have and should have stopped his motorcycle before he drove past each checkline. Despite repeated warnings (even with the firing of pepper balls at Checkline 3), the Defendant deliberately ran through the Police checklines and eventually collided with the police officers at Checkline 4.

128. We accept the evidence that the Defendant did accelerate his motorcycle either shortly before or shortly after arriving at each of Checklines 1 to 4. In particular, regarding Checkline 4 at the junction of Jaffe Road and O’Brien Road, we accept that after the Defendant had overtaken the Brown Car through the gap, his motorcycle accelerated as evidenced by the loud engine sound heard in the video.

129. We accept that at Checkline 1, the closest distance between the Defendant’s motorcycle and the police officers was about 1 metre, that at Checkline 2 was about 1 metre, and that at Checkline 3 was about 1 to 2 metres. The Defendant’s act of intentionally running through multiple checklines at such close proximity to the police officers was, in our view, inherently dangerous regardless of the speed at which he was travelling.