Crown appeals acquittal of driver in fatal crash
The Crown has filed an appeal of the acquittal of Ken Chung, who was charged with dangerous driving causing the death of Vancouver doctor Alphonsus Hui.
Hui died at age 68 on Nov. 15, 2015, after a car slammed into his vehicle at the intersection of West 41st Avenue and Oak Street in Vancouver.
Police estimate the person who hit him had been driving more than 140 kilometres an hour in a 50 km/h zone.
Ken Chung, then 35 and of Richmond, was tried for dangerous driving causing death and acquitted on May 25.
The judge concluded “the momentariness of the accused’s conduct in excessively speeding is insufficient to meet the criminal fault component.”
The acquittal prompted Hui’s family to start a petition, calling for more than a “slap on the wrist” for Chung, according to a Facebook post by Hui’s daughter, Monique.
Monique Hui described her reaction after hearing about the appeal. “I cried hysterically, and then I called my mom and we cried . ... We are quietly celebrating that maybe ... things are finally going to turn the corner.”
Josephine Hui, widow to Alphonsus, echoed the optimism. “This is the first time I’m able to breathe . ... At least this proves there’s hope. And I’m also very happy for the overwhelming support from outside.”
Monique added that there is still much work for her family to do. On Friday, she will be giving the petition, signed by more than 50,000, to the minister of public safety, her MLA and the attorney general.
“Ultimately, we want Ken Chung behind bars . ... But the larger issue is really, potentially, my father’s legacy, which is effecting change,” she said.
“We’re hoping to introduce new legislation and tighter laws in regards to repeat offenders on the road, specifically excessive speeding.”
Two weeks before the acquittal, Chung was in court on an unrelated charge of excessive speeding and found guilty for the 2017 offence.
The B.C. Prosecution Service is seeking a ruling from the Court of Appeal for British Columbia that the acquittal be set aside, a conviction substituted as originally charged or a new trial ordered.
In a statement, its decision is based on being “satisfied that: the ruling reveals errors of law.”