資料：1924年5月30日《Hong Kong Daily Press》第5頁
THE UN LUNG MOTOR BUS COLLISION.
DRIVERS FOUND GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER.
JURY’S IMPORTANT RIDER.
The case in which the two motor-bus drivers concerned in the Un Lung motor-bus collision, were terminated yesterday afternoon. The prisoners were found guilty and sentenced to three years’ hard labour each. The Jury added an important rider to their verdict. They recommended that it should be brought to the notice of the authorities that all bridges, in their opinion, should be widened to the width of the road. They also recommended that steps should be taken to separate bus drivers from passengers so that no conversation between driver and passengers could take place.
His Lordship intimated that the recommendations would be forwarded to the proper quarter.
On the Court resuming yesterday afternoon, Mr. Campbell Prosser addressed the Jury at some length. He opened by dealing with the question of negligence. The Jury, he argued, had to be satisfied that gross negligence amounting to recklessness had been proved before the prisoners could be convicted. The Attorney-General, he said, in opening for the Crown had put the case for above what had been proved in evidence and cross-examination. The Crown’s case had fallen short of a conviction.
Continuing, Mr. Prosser said that if the collision took place anywhere on the bridge his case for the defence would be hopeless. If this happened it would have shown that there was a dispute between the drivers as to the right of way across the bridge. On the facts proved these never was a dispute as to right of way between the two prisoners. Both prisoners in their evidence showed that the bus from Tsim Sha Tsui had no intention of crossing the bridge first. This, said Mr. Prosser, was a very vital part of his case. The Crown had also said that there was never any intention on the part of the drivers to slow down, but both men had said that they did slow down and on that point their statements were not challenged. The first prisoner had said he could have avoided the collision if he had not slowed down. He probably lost his head when he saw the other bus was on the bridge.
RECKLESS AND CARELESS.
Regarding the evidence of the expert witness for the Crown, Mr. Prosser said it was an extraordinary coincidence that both foot brakes were out of order. He was fully convinced that these two foot brakes were used all that day and yet it was extraordinary that they should both need adjusting when the collision took place. He attributed the collision to a pure error of judgement. The driver of No. 1204 bus expected to get across the bridge and the other driver expected the bridge would be clear by the time he reached it.
The Attorney-General, in the course of his address, said he was prepared to accept the prisoner’s statements that the foot brakes were in order and used during the day of the collision. “I am prepared to accept that, gentlemen, but I lay blame to them for not having used those brakes in time. If they had they might have prevented the collision.” He asked the Jury not to pay too much attention to minor details but to direct their attention to the final event of unfortunate collision. He submitted that the Jury could get away from the drivers’ own stories – and he was prepared to accept those stories – and on those stories he asked the Jury to find the prisoners “Guilty.”
The Jury, after a brief retirement, returned verdicts of “Guilty” against both prisoners. The foreman than read a rider, the substance of which is given above.
His Lordship, addressing the prisoners, described the case as a very serious one and they had been convicted of manslaughter. They had both acted in a very reckless and careless manner. He could do no less than sentence them to three years’ hard labour each.
翻譯：
元朗巴士相撞
司機誤殺罪成
陪審團重要建議
早前於元朗(Un Lung)造成兩台巴士相撞的案件於昨日下午審結，被告罪名成立，並判處每人各三年苦工監。陪審團除了給予判決外亦提出了重要建議，他們建議有關部門將所有橋樑擴闊至與連接路面闊度相同，亦建議採取措施分隔巴士司機與乘客，好讓雙方不能交談。
法官閣下表示會將建議轉交相關單位。
昨日下午審訊重開時，保羅瑟先生(Mr. Campbell Prosser)向陪審團發表了很長的陳詞，主要講述疏忽的問題，他表示陪審團應該掌握了被告是作出了非常魯莽的疏忽作為，而律政司的開案陳詞與後來出示的證據及盤問的差異，亦導致官方未能立即定案。
保羅瑟先生續說如果意外發生於橋面位置，那辯方則毫無勝算，因為這就變成了雙方爭奪道路優先權的爭議了，而證據亦證明兩位被告沒有爭奪道路優先權，證據顯示往元朗巴士沒有打算優先過橋，這是整個案件的重點。官方曾說兩名被告沒有意圖減速，但他們亦作證指他們都有減速，這證言亦無可抗辯。首被告曾稱當時如果沒有減速，就能避免意外發生。可以說當他看到對頭巴士時就已失去判斷能力了。
魯莽與粗心
至於官方專家的證供，保羅瑟先生認為兩車腳掣同時失靈只屬純粹的巧合，當然他亦知道兩車腳掣已被使用全日，但當意外前竟同時需要調整顯得異於平常。他總結認為事件純屬判斷失誤，1204號巴士司機預算可順利通過橋面，而另一位司機則預算車輛到達時橋面已經暢通了。
律政司陳詞時，表示他是接受被告指兩車腳掣沒有失靈並且全日使用的證供，「我是接受這點的，各位，但我必須譴責他們沒有及時使用制動器，否則意外就不會發生」。他請求陪審團不應注重案件的細微末節，而應注意這不幸意外所造成的結果。他建議陪審團不需注重司機們的證供(當然他是認同他們的證供的)，而在他們的作為上他希望陪審團所對被告作出「有罪」判決。
陪審團於退庭相討後，對被告作出「有罪」判決，首席陪審員隨後發表了建議，內容前面已述。
法官閣下對被告表示這宗誤殺案件案情嚴重，他們的行為魯莽、粗心大意，以此作為考量，故此判處每人三年苦工監。