香港特別行政區 訴 陳敏達
Leave to appeal was granted because the trial judge failed to consider whether the proposed defence witness could give evidence on an alternative, narrower basis (as a vehicle-condition expert), and there were arguable grounds that exclusion of his evidence may have prejudiced the defence.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] HKCA 1202
- Parties
- Respondent: 香港特別行政區; Applicant: CHAN Man tat (陳敏達)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 16 October 2019
- Case Number
- CACC344/2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Conviction Granted
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal against conviction granted
- Legal Topics
- Dangerous Driving Causing Death, Expert Evidence Admissibility, Traffic Accident Reconstruction, Leave to Appeal
- Source Language
- ch
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
香港特別行政區
Respondent
CHAN Man tat (陳敏達)
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Conviction Granted
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in excluding the defence expert on traffic accident reconstruction
- 2 Whether the defence expert could at least have been admitted on an alternative basis as a vehicle-condition expert
- 3 Whether exclusion of the expert evidence prejudiced the defendant's right to a fair trial
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted because the trial judge failed to consider whether the proposed defence witness could give evidence on an alternative, narrower basis (as a vehicle-condition expert), and there were arguable grounds that exclusion of his evidence may have prejudiced the defence.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal against conviction granted
Orders
- Leave to appeal against conviction granted
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACC 344/2018 [2019] HKCA 1202 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 刑事司法管轄權 不服定罪上訴許可申請 刑事上訴案件2018年第344號 (原區域法院刑事案件2018年第117號) __________________ 答辯人 香港特別行政區 對 申請人 CHAN Man tat (陳敏達) __________________ 主審法官： 高等法院上訴法庭法官彭偉昌 聆訊日期： 2019年10月16日 判案日期： 2019年10月16日 判 案 書 申請人在審訊後被裁定一項‘危險駕駛引致他人死亡’罪成立，處入獄15個月及暫時失去駕駛資格等刑罰。 我在聽取雙方陳詞後批准申請人就定罪提出上訴（他早前已獲保釋）。 我同意原審法官拒絕接納繆先生為辯方「交通意外重組專家」的決定。卷宗上確實沒有足夠資料以讓法庭裁定他為這方面的專家。 然而，繆先生似乎有足夠的學歷和工作經驗，就一部汽車和一輛摩托車在碰撞後所可能產生的後果，例如是騎摩托車者會被拋飛的角度和落地位置等，作專家意見。 由於這些問題，是控方交通意外重組專家陶博士有所觸及的，而辯方亦曾要求法庭最少以「汽車狀態專家」的交替基礎讓繆先生作供，所以法庭是有須要考慮的，但原審法官卻完全沒有處理這個議題（見她的書面裁決）。 我並未忽略，儘管繆先生沒有作供，但他所持的不同意見（見他的暫取報告），卻已從陶博士的盤問基本帶出（見辯方的發問）。不過，這是否能完全取代繆先生本人在庭上的證供（如有），卻未必有一個即時及簡單的答案。 基於以上的理由，我認為申請人的上訴是合理可供辯的。 (彭偉昌) 高等法院上訴法庭法官 申請人： 由法律援助署委派鄭煥新蔡秀蓮律師事務所轉聘李國輔大律師代表 答辯人： 由律政司高級檢控官陳韻婷女士代表