Hong Kong Judgment

Court of First Instance

HKSAR v. SHEK MING YAU

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Appellant's deliberate crossing of continuous double white lines so that his vehicle was wholly on the wrong carriageway while negotiating a bend constituted dangerous driving because it fell far below the standard of a competent and careful driver and would obviously be dangerous; accordingly the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction for causing death by dangerous driving upheld

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed
  • Conviction for causing death by dangerous driving upheld
  • No appeal against sentence

02

Material facts

Parties

Appellant

Appellant Counsel: Mr James H.M. McGowan

Respondent

Respondent Counsel: Mr David Leung, Senior Government Counsel

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Appellant submitted that the death caused the allegation of dangerous driving and that he would not have been prosecuted for dangerous driving merely for carrying out the manoeuvre if there had been no collision; crossing the lines alone should not automatically attract a dangerous driving charge.
Respondent
The Respondent argued that crossing continuous double white lines is prohibited and inherently risky, that the Appellant's manoeuvre placed his vehicle wholly in the wrong carriageway and fell far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver, and that such conduct invites prosecution for dangerous driving even absent a collision.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    traffic regulations/road traffic rules (as stated in judgment)

    Crossing continuous double white lines is prohibited and places oncoming traffic at risk

  2. 02

    statutory definition as applied by the court

    Dangerous driving is conduct that falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and that would be obviously dangerous to such a driver

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Appellant's deliberate crossing of continuous double white lines so that his vehicle was wholly on the wrong carriageway while negotiating a bend constituted dangerous driving because it fell far below the standard of a competent and careful driver and would obviously be dangerous; accordingly the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Obiter and limits

  • Crossing double white lines is done at a driver's peril: it risks an accident and invites prosecution for dangerous driving.
  • Overtaking on and crossing double white lines is a clear way to invite prosecution even if no collision occurs.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction for causing death by dangerous driving upheld

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed
  • Conviction for causing death by dangerous driving upheld
  • No appeal against sentence

Source and reliance status

Court of First Instance · 29 March 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.

Source document

Court of First Instance

Judgment· 29 March 2007

HKSAR v. SHEK MING YAU

bjbj f g) ant _____ Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Line in Court Date of Hearing: 29 March 2007 Date of Judgment: 29 March 2007 ____

J U D G M E N T ____ 1. This is an appeal against a conviction for causing death by dangerous driving. The Appellant was driving a public light bus on Hoi Ha Road, in the Sai Kung Country Park. It is a two-lane road. The carriageways are divided by continuous double white lines.

2. The photographs in the case show the scene where a cyclist met his death. At that point Hoi Ha Road has a left-hand bend for those driving uphill, as the Appellant was. There was a cyclist pedalling uphill. The Appellant decided to give him a very wide berth and he pulled across the double white lines, such that his vehicle was wholly on the other carriageway. Coming downhill, approaching the bend, was the cyclist who was engaged in a cycle race. He was confronted by the PLB in his lane. He could not avoid the collision that occurred, as a result of which he very sadly died.

3. The issue in this appeal is was the manoeuvre that the Appellant carried out a dangerous one? In my judgment, it obviously was. Double white lines prohibit a vehicle from crossing. The man driving in the opposite direction, whether on a bike or in a motorcar, can expect to have his side of the road clear from oncoming traffic. For the Appellant to put his vehicle completely on the wrong side of the road over the double white lines, in my judgment, did meet the statutory definition of dangerous driving, in that the way he drove fell far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

4. You cross double white lines if you are a driver at your peril and the perils are two-fold: one is you risk an accident and you invite prosecution for dangerous driving. The argument was advanced by the Appellant that it was the death that caused the allegation of dangerous driving here and the Appellant would not have been prosecuted for dangerous driving merely if he had carried out the manoeuvre and there had been no collision. I reject that. Certainly, my experience is that if there is one certain way to invite a prosecution for dangerous driving, it is to overtake on and to cross double white lines.

5. Accordingly, the appeal against conviction is dismissed. There is no appeal against the sentence. (P Line) Deputy High Court Judge Representation: Mr David Leung, Senior Government Counsel of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent Mr James H.M. McGowan, instructed by Peter K.H. Wong & Co assigned by Director of Legal Aid, for the Appellant

PAGE -

PAGE CRT32/29.3.2007/DB HCMA879/2006/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 &`#$ Normal.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 judiciary Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.