HKSAR v. WAI WING HONG

HKSAR v. WAI WING HONG

Conviction affirmed because admitted facts and certificates established that the officers were trained screening breath test operators, no expertise beyond training was required to operate the devices, the Lion Alcolmeter result justified requiring a Drager Alcotest screening test under s39B(1)(a), and all six...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HKSAR v. WAI WING HONG
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 July 2013
Case Number
HCMA763/2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (road Traffic Ordinance) / Appeal Judgment (conviction and Sentence)
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part
Legal Topics
Screening Breath Test, Operator Qualification, Statutory Interpretation of S39 B, Sentence Discretion and Disqualification
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Evidence Screening Breath Test Operator Qualification Statutory Interpretation of S39 B Sentence Discretion and Disqualification

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (road Traffic Ordinance) / Appeal Judgment (conviction and Sentence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether operators of Lion Alcolmeter and Drager Alcotest needed to be 'experts' and whether their training certificates were admissible and sufficient
  2. 2 Whether the pre-conditions in s39B(1A) were satisfied and s39B(1)(a) applied
  3. 3 Whether police required reasonable grounds to require a screening breath test

Ratio Decidendi

Conviction affirmed because admitted facts and certificates established that the officers were trained screening breath test operators, no expertise beyond training was required to operate the devices, the Lion Alcolmeter result justified requiring a Drager Alcotest screening test under s39B(1)(a), and all six failed attempts were due to insufficient blowing under s39B(10); sentence was reduced because the lower court had not considered the discretion under s39B(8) to treat the prior conviction as spent, warranting reduction of the disqualification period from 5 to 2 years.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part

Orders

  • Conviction affirmed
  • Sentence varied: disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence reduced from 5 years to 2 years