HKSAR v. LAM MING LOK

HKSAR v. LAM MING LOK

Magistrate accepted the evidence the defendant was genuinely semi-conscious and incapable of comprehending requests at the material time, and concluded that on the evidence there remained a reasonable possibility the defendant could not form the requisite mental element for Charge 1; further, the court found the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKMagC 13
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; Defendant: LAM Ming Lok
Court
Magistrates' Courts
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 October 2021
Case Number
ESCC2365/2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Review Hearing / Ruling
Outcome
All prosecution review applications dismissed; Defendant acquitted on Charge 1; reversal of pleas on Charges 2 and 3 upheld; trial of Charges 2 and 3 to be fixed before another Magistrate; bail granted to Defendant.
Legal Topics
Failure to Provide Specimen, Reverse of Plea, Reasonable Excuse, Self Induced Intoxication, Section 39 C Road Traffic Ordinance, Review of Magistrate Decision
Source Language
en
Road Traffic Law Criminal Procedure Evidence Police Powers Medical Consent Failure to Provide Specimen Reverse of Plea Reasonable Excuse +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

LAM Ming Lok

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Review Hearing / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's semi-conscious state from intoxication amounted to a reasonable excuse for failing to provide a blood specimen under s.39C
  2. 2 Whether self-induced intoxication can constitute a reasonable excuse
  3. 3 Whether the Magistrate properly allowed reversal of guilty pleas where defence counsel admitted having induced the pleas

Ratio Decidendi

Magistrate accepted the evidence the defendant was genuinely semi-conscious and incapable of comprehending requests at the material time, and concluded that on the evidence there remained a reasonable possibility the defendant could not form the requisite mental element for Charge 1; further, the court found the reversal of pleas to Charges 2 and 3 was properly allowed because defence counsel openly admitted he had induced the guilty pleas by erroneous advice, creating a real risk of miscarriage of justice. The prosecution's review applications were therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

All prosecution review applications dismissed; Defendant acquitted on Charge 1; reversal of pleas on Charges 2 and 3 upheld; trial of Charges 2 and 3 to be fixed before another Magistrate; bail granted to Defendant.

Orders

  • Acquit Defendant on Charge 1 (contrary to sections 39C(1)(b) and (15) Road Traffic Ordinance Cap.374)
  • Dismiss prosecution's review of the Acquittal Decision