R. v. LIU CHI WING
The court held the conviction was unsafe because the evidence only showed a third vehicle braked causing the appellant to brake and swerve uncontrollably; that evidence was insufficient for a finding of careless driving and therefore the appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence were set aside.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- R. v. LIU CHI WING
- Parties
- Appellant: Liu Chi Wing; Prosecution: The Queen
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 9 August 1995
- Case Number
- HCMA621/1995
- Procedural Posture
- Magistracy Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside.
- Legal Topics
- Careless Driving, Evidence Sufficiency, Cautioned Statement, Conviction Quashed
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Liu Chi Wing
Appellant
The Queen
Prosecution
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for careless driving was supported by sufficient evidence
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate's finding was safe given the evidence
- 3 Admissibility and evidential weight of the appellant's cautioned statement admitted by agreement
Ratio Decidendi
The court held the conviction was unsafe because the evidence only showed a third vehicle braked causing the appellant to brake and swerve uncontrollably; that evidence was insufficient for a finding of careless driving and therefore the appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence were set aside.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; sentence set aside.
Orders
- Conviction quashed
- Sentence set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
bjbj& IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (Appellate Jurisdiction) MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 621 OF 1995 __________ BETWEEN THE QUEEN and LIU CHI WING __________ Coram : Hon Yang CJ Date of Hearing : 9 August 1995 Date of Judgment : 9 August 1995 ---------------------- J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Hon Yang, CJ: The appellant was convicted after trial of careless driving. He now appeals against the conviction. Evidence for the prosecution was given by only one witness, i.e. the driver of another vehicle who was involved in the minor traffic accident with which we are concerned. The appellant himself did not give evidence but his cautioned statement was admitted into evidence by agreement. Without going into the details of the facts of the case, in my view, the conviction is unsafe in the sense that all the evidence against the appellant was that a private car in front of him (not the car involved in the accident) braked, and this caused him to brake; he swerved uncontrollably to the right, hitting the concrete dividing parapet on the road which caused his car to bounce to the left, thereby causing the offside of his vehicle to hit the rear of the other vehicle which was travelling in a lane on his left side. It is not an easy case to decide. It was very much on the border line but in my view the evidence was not sufficient for the trial magistrate to come to the view that he was guilty of careless driving. I would allow the appeal, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence. ( T L Yang ) Chief Justice Mr Ronald Tang (Messrs K F Wong & Co) for Appellant Mr John Reading of the Attorney General s Chambers for Crown - PAGE - W[SO @& > @& @& -lC&-lC& " & 6" IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Registrar, Supreme Court Normal Microsoft Word 8.0 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Title _PID_GUID Microsoft Word MSWordDoc Word.Document.8