HKSAR v. LEUNG WAI WO AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. LEUNG WAI WO AND OTHERS

The Magistrate properly evaluated the totality of the evidence — congregation of vehicles, high speed, close proximity, noisy engines/tyres, route and roadblock funneling, and credible police observation — and his findings that racing occurred and that each appellant was involved were open to him; there was no defence evidence to undermine the prosecution case, and custodial sentences were appropriate for deterrence and public safety.

Citation
HKSAR v. LEUNG WAI WO AND OTHERS
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Appellant: Leung Wai Wo; 2nd Appellant: Mak Ping Man; 3rd Appellant: To Chun Man; 4th Appellant: Leung Ping Kuen; 5th Appellant: Jim Kim Bong; 6th Appellant: Ki Ho Chi
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 March 2000
Case Number
HCMA825/1999
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal No. 825 of 1999) / Judgment on Appeal (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Appeals against conviction dismissed. Appeals against sentence by A1 and A3 dismissed. A2, A4 and A5 abandoned sentence appeals prior to hearing; A6 abandoned sentence appeal at hearing.
Legal Topics
Road Racing, Reckless Driving, Third Party Motor Insurance, Sentence and Deterrence, Evidentiary Assessment
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Insurance Law Road Racing Reckless Driving Third Party Motor Insurance Sentence and Deterrence Evidentiary Assessment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

Leung Wai Wo

1st Appellant

Mak Ping Man

2nd Appellant

To Chun Man

3rd Appellant

Leung Ping Kuen

4th Appellant

Jim Kim Bong

5th Appellant

Ki Ho Chi

6th Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal No. 825 of 1999) / Judgment on Appeal (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the driving constituted "taking part in motor racing" under s.55(1)(a) RTO
  2. 2 Whether police observation evidence was sufficiently reliable to prove participation by each appellant
  3. 3 Whether appellants were innocent bystanders caught up in a pack of racers

Ratio Decidendi

The Magistrate properly evaluated the totality of the evidence — congregation of vehicles, high speed, close proximity, noisy engines/tyres, route and roadblock funneling, and credible police observation — and his findings that racing occurred and that each appellant was involved were open to him; there was no defence evidence to undermine the prosecution case, and custodial sentences were appropriate for deterrence and public safety.

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction dismissed. Appeals against sentence by A1 and A3 dismissed. A2, A4 and A5 abandoned sentence appeals prior to hearing; A6 abandoned sentence appeal at hearing.

Orders

  • Convictions for taking part in motor racing (s.55(1)(a) Road Traffic Ordinance Cap.374) and for using a motor vehicle without third party insurance (s.4(1) and (2)(a) Motor Vehicle Insurance (3rd Party Risks) Ordinance Cap.272) upheld for each appellant
  • Each appellant sentenced to 2 months imprisonment for the racing conviction