HKSAR v. DIAZ, JEFFERSON SAMPILO
- Citation
- HKSAR v. DIAZ, JEFFERSON SAMPILO
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 29 November 2007
- Posture
- Magistracy Appeal (careless Driving) / Judgment on Appeal
- Case number
- HCMA985/2007
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 29 November 2007
- Posture
- Magistracy Appeal (careless Driving) / Judgment on Appeal
- Case number
- HCMA985/2007
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
There was proven contact between vehicles and the driving objectively failed to meet the standard of a reasonable and prudent driver; therefore the conviction for careless driving was properly recorded and the appeal must be dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction for careless driving upheld
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Conviction for careless driving affirmed
02
Material facts
Parties
HKSAR
Respondent Counsel: Ms Olivia Tsang, Senior Government Counsel (Ag.) of the Department of JusticeDiaz, Jefferson Sampilo
Appellant Counsel: In person03
Procedural history
Posture
Magistracy Appeal (careless Driving) / Judgment on Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appellant's contact with the vehicle in front constituted careless driving
- 02
Whether the magistrate's factual findings and conviction should be overturned on appeal
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant (self-represented) and his witness accepted there was minor contact or 'tapping' at slow speed and argued the contact was slight and did not amount to careless driving.
- Respondent
- Prosecution submitted that contact occurred and that reasonable and prudent drivers do not drive into another vehicle; the driving objectively failed to meet the required standard and the conviction should be upheld.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law/road traffic standards
Driving is judged by the objective standard of a reasonable and prudent driver
- 02
Appeal principles/common law
An appellate court will defer to the magistrate's findings of fact and credibility unless perverse
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
There was proven contact between vehicles and the driving objectively failed to meet the standard of a reasonable and prudent driver; therefore the conviction for careless driving was properly recorded and the appeal must be dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- Appellant did not give evidence and his employer conceded some tapping occurred
- Appellant appeared not to understand many matters but the reasons for conviction were explained by the court
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction for careless driving upheld
- Appeal dismissed
- Conviction for careless driving affirmed
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 29 November 2007
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 29 November 2007
bjbj HCMA985/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 985 OF 2007 (ON APPEAL FROM ESS 22543 OF 2007) ___
BETWEEN HKSAR Respondent and DIAZ, JEFFERSON SAMPILO Appellant ___ Before: Deputy High Court Judge Line in Court Date of Hearing: 29 November 2007 Date of Judgment: 29 November 2007 ___
J U D G M E N T ___ 1. This is an appeal against a conviction for careless driving. The facts are very simple. The appellant was driving his employers' motor vehicle in a queue of slow-moving traffic on Repulse Bay Road and it is quite clear that his car touched the car in front. He did not give evidence to deny that in the trial below. He called his employer, who was in the car, and whilst the employer disputed how hard the contact was between her vehicle and the one in front, she conceded, in effect, that there had been some - as she described it - tapping. It is quite clear that the magistrate was right to find that there had been contact between the two vehicles.
2. Given that one vehicle drove into another, albeit at a slow speed and did not cause much damage, the fact is that reasonable and prudent drivers do not do that. The driving here objectively failed to measure up to the required standard and the conviction for careless driving was inevitable. Mr Diaz came here really not understanding a lot of the matters, but I think he understands now why he has the conviction. The appeal against it has to be dismissed. (P Line) Deputy High Court Judge Representations: Ms Olivia Tsang, Senior Government Counsel (Ag.), of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent Appellant: Diaz, Jefferson Sampilo, in person
PAGE -
PAGE CRT30/29.11.2007/MMcG HCMA985/2007/Reasons for Judgment
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V &`#$ JUDGE.DOT setup Microsoft Word 9.0 judiciary Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.