資料：1924年5月30日《The Hong Kong Telegraph》第2頁
BUS DRIVERS CONVICTED.
SENTENCE OF THREE YEARS.
The trial of the two bus drivers concerned in the Castle Peak collision on April 6th came to an end yesterday, when both were found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to three years imprisonment. In returning their verdict of guilty the jury noted two important items in a rider. These were that they wished the authorities to be informed that they considered that all bridges in the New Territories should be made the width of the roads they bridged, and they also recommended that steps be taken to separate the drivers of all buses from the passengers, so that there could be no conversation between drivers and passengers. His Lordship said the rider would be carried to the right quarter.
Mr. Prosser, in his speech for the defence, dealt at length with the point of negligence. He argued that the jury must be satisfied that gross negligence had been proved, amounting to recklessness, before prisoners could be committed.
Continuing, he said the Attorney General, if he might say so, with his usual fairness in opening the case had put it so far above what had been since proved in the witness box and in cross-examination. It had fallen short of what the Attorney General had wanted to prove and knew he had to prove to get a verdict against either of the prisoners.
No Dispute as to Right of Way.
He further said that if the collision took place anywhere on the bridge his case for the defence would have been hopeless, because if would have shown that there was a dispute between the drivers as to the right of way across the bridge. The facts showed there never was a dispute as to the right of way between the two prisoners. They had both gone into the box and made themselves open to cross-examination, and their evidence showed that the man from Tsim Sha Tsui had no intention of crossing the bridge first. That was a vital part of the case. The Attorney General had, also in his opening, said that there was never any intention on the part of the drivers to slow down the buses, but both men had said in the box that they did slow down and they were not challenged on the point. The first prisoner had said he could have avoided the collision if he had not slowed down. No doubt he saw the other bus almost on the bridge, and lost his head.
Dealing with the evidence of the prosecution’s expert witness, Mr. Prosser said it was extraordinary coincidence that the foot brakes of both vehicles were out of order after the collision, they having been tested that morning, according to the bus company’s manager, who was a witness for the prosecution. He would be interested in what the Attorney General would say when he came to deal with that witness’s evidence.
Continuing, counsel attributed the collision not to lack of skill but pure error of judgment. The driver of 1204 expected to get across the bridge and the driver of 1314 expected the bridge would be clear by the time he reached it. Could that be the criminal negligence that it was necessary to find?
The Crown’s Reply.
The Attorney General said Mr. Prosser had laid emphasis, he might say over-emphasis, on the amount of negligence it was necessary to find. If the jury found there was to a sufficient degree careless conduct, that was enough for a verdict of guilt. The jury must not be led away by the over emphasis laid on the point by his friend. He was prepared to tell the prisoners’ story that they never used their foot brakes that day. If they had used them the collision might have been avoided. It was obvious from what the driver of 1204 had said that he had no intention of giving way to the other bus. He had said he was nearer the bridge and considered he had the right of way. This prisoner had also said he slowed down to 15 miles an hour on the bridge. It would had take him a second to cross the bridge, said the Attorney General. He could think of nothing than careless, futile or culpable by that. He asked the jury to convict both prisoners on their own stories.
His Lordship having summed up, the jury retired and after short deliberation returned a verdict of guilty against both prisoners.
In passing a sentence on both men of three years, His Lordship said they had been convicted a very serious matter.
翻譯：
巴士司機定罪
刑罰三年
兩名巴士司機於4月6日青山造成兩車相撞事件，案件於昨日審結，兩人誤殺罪名成立，各判處入獄三年。陪審團除了給予判決外，亦提出了兩項重要建議，他們希望有關部門將新界所有橋面寬度改成與連接路面寬度相同，並建議採取措施分隔司機與乘客，好讓雙方不能對話。法官閣下表示會將建議傳達相關部門。
保羅瑟先生(Mr. Prosser)於辯方陳詞時，用了很大篇幅來講述疏忽的問題。他辯說經過審訊後，陪審團一定充分掌握了被告的行為只是疏忽犯罪，而不是罔顧犯罪。
他續說律政司由其一貫公正的開案陳詞開始，經過多人作證及多輪盤問，審訊發展已與律政司預想有很大出入，律政司需要證據來證明被告有罪。
與道路優先權無關
他續說如果事故發生於橋上任何一個位置，辯方將會毫無勝算，因為這會變成爭奪道路優先權的爭議。事實證明兩名被告皆沒有爭奪道路優先權，兩人均上了證人席並接受了盤問，而根據他們的證供，往元朗巴士司機完全沒有打算搶先通過橋面，這是整個案件的重點。律政司於開案陳詞時曾表示兩人均沒有意識讓巴士減速，但兩人作供時均表示他們均已減速，而且這個證供亦無可抗辯，首被告亦曾證言如沒有減速，意外就不會發生。毫無疑問，當他在橋上看到對頭巴士駛近橋面時，就已經失去思考能力了。
至於控方專家的證詞，保羅瑟先生認為兩車腳掣於事故後同時失靈只屬單純的巧合，根據控方證人巴士公司經理證供，制動系統均於事發當天早上通過測試。他很想知道律政司在聽到這個證言時有甚麼想表達。
他續說事故發生非因駕駛技術不足，而是單純的誤判，1204號巴士司機預期他可通過橋面，而1314號巴士司機則預期他的車輛駛達時橋面已經暢通。難道這也算是刑事疏忽嗎？
官方回應
律政司回應保羅瑟先生，表示保羅瑟先生只強調，甚至過於強調案件中的疏忽成份。其實如果陪審團於審訊中發現被告有一定程度的不小心，就已經可以給予有罪判決，陪審團不應被這位朋友的過度強調而影響判斷。他已準備告訴大家兩位被告於當日根本沒有使用腳掣，如果有使用，意外根本不會發生。從1204號巴士司機證言可以得知他根本就沒有打算讓路，他認為他更接近橋面所以有道路優先權。被告還說他曾減速至時速15英里，然而過橋卻只需1秒時間。就以上的事情，他除了不小心、徒勞、應受制裁外，已經想不到其他詞語來形容案件。他請求陪審團為兩名被告給予判決。
法官閣下為案件作結，陪審團於退庭討論後，最後給予兩名被告有罪判決。
法官閣下根據判決處以各人三年刑罰，並表示因考慮到案件嚴重性才判以相當刑期。