HKSAR v. LAU SHING CHUNG SIMON
The appeal is dismissed because the Magistrate's finding that the driving was careless (not dangerous) is supported by the evidence and the conviction did not depend on the disputed admission, so the conviction is not unsafe.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- HKSAR v. LAU SHING CHUNG SIMON
- Parties
- Respondent: Respondent
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 24 August 2010
- Case Number
- HCMA429/2010
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Against Conviction (dangerous Driving Reduced to Careless Driving) / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; conviction of careless driving upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Dangerous Driving, Careless Driving, Appeal Against Conviction, Evidence Admissions
- 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
Respondent
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Conviction (dangerous Driving Reduced to Careless Driving) / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether conviction for careless driving is unsafe
- 2 Whether the Magistrate improperly relied on disputed admissions
- 3 Whether the evidence supports a finding of dangerous driving or only careless driving
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the Magistrate's finding that the driving was careless (not dangerous) is supported by the evidence and the conviction did not depend on the disputed admission, so the conviction is not unsafe.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction of careless driving upheld.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed; conviction of careless driving upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
bjbjT~T~ nt ____________ Before: The Honourable Mrs Justice V. Bokhary in Court Date of Hearing: 24 August 2010 Date of Judgment: 24 August 2010 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ This Appellant appeared in the Magistrates Court on a charge of dangerous driving. He was convicted after trial of the lesser offence of careless driving, and he now appeals against that conviction. In his notice of appeal, the Appellant wrote: Conviction is unsafe . The Appellant has submitted detailed written submission in support of his appeal and, before me today, he expanded on them. The Magistrate has, in my opinion, approached her task with care. It is contended by the Appellant that the Magistrate s reliance on his disputed admissions to the second prosecution witness was unsafe. I do not accept that. In any case, the conviction is not at all dependent on that admission. There were good reasons why the Magistrate did not feel sure that the Appellant s driving was dangerous, but that it was careless. Her finding that it was careless is supported by the evidence, and I find nothing unsafe in how she arrived at it. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (V. Bokhary) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court Appellant, in person Ms Eva Chan, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent PAGE - 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 1udk 1udk [Content_Types].xml Iw}, $yi} _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml w toc'v )I`n 3Vq%'#q x}r :\TZaG I u3 L+M2 e\O* $*c? )6-r IqbJ#x ,AGm T[XF64 E)`# R>QD =(K& =al- 4vfa 0%M0 theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> i$&. setup HCMA.dot setup Microsoft Office Word Judiciary Hong Kong Title Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8