香港特別行政區 訴 楊式琪
The High Court held the magistrate did not err in principle and the sentence was not excessive given the circumstances: the defendant overtook into the opposite lane, struck a pedestrian during busy morning hours causing death, and had multiple recent careless driving convictions; these facts justified the custodial...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 香港特別行政區 訴 楊式琪
- Parties
- Respondent: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (香港特別行政區); Appellant: YEUNG SIK-KI (楊式琪)
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 26 October 2017
- Case Number
- HCMA99/2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence to the High Court (magistrates' Appeal)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; original sentence upheld
- Legal Topics
- Careless Driving, Death Caused by Vehicle, Disqualification, Repeat Offending, Mitigation
- Source Language
- ch
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (香港特別行政區)
Respondent
YEUNG SIK-KI (楊式琪)
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence to the High Court (magistrates' Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence for careless driving causing death was excessive or erroneous
- 2 Whether the magistrate erred in assessing mitigation including appellant's employment and financial hardship
- 3 Whether prior careless driving convictions and the fatal outcome justified the custodial element and disqualification
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held the magistrate did not err in principle and the sentence was not excessive given the circumstances: the defendant overtook into the opposite lane, struck a pedestrian during busy morning hours causing death, and had multiple recent careless driving convictions; these facts justified the custodial element (14 days suspended for 2 years), 12‑month disqualification, fines and requirement to retake the driving test.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; original sentence upheld
Orders
- Appeal against sentence dismissed
- Original sentence upheld: 14 days imprisonment suspended for 2 years, driving disqualification for 12 months, fine of HKD 2,000 on the careless driving count and requirement to retake driving test
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
HCMA 99/2017 香港特別行政區 高等法院原訟法庭 刑事上訴司法管轄權 判刑上訴 裁判法院上訴案件2017年第99號 (原觀塘裁判法院刑事案件2016年第4168號) 答辯人 香港特別行政區 訴 上訴人 楊式琪 (YEUNG SIK-KI) 主審法官 ： 高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官陳廣池 聆訊日期 ： 2017年6月21日 判案書日期 ： 2017年10月26日 判案書 上訴人在主任裁判官練錦鴻席前承認一項「不小心駕駛」罪及另外3項涉及車輛構造及保養規例的罪名。裁判官就第一項的「不小心駕駛」罪判上訴人監禁14天，緩刑兩年，停牌12個月，罰款 $2,000，並需要重新考牌。裁判官就餘下的每項控罪判罰款$3,000。上訴人就第一項控罪的判刑提出上訴。上訴人在原審時和在本上訴並沒有律師代表。 控方案情 2016年4月7日早上8時許，上訴人駕駛一輛輕型貨車沿廣東道北行駛至弼街交界時，上訴人越過前面車輛駛入對面行車線，再右轉入弼街。此際，一名64歲女士由北至南橫過弼街。女行人在橫過馬路三分二時被上訴人的貨車左邊車身撞到而受傷。那女行人不幸地在5天之後重傷死亡。案發時天氣晴朗，路面乾爽，交通正常。 上訴理據 上訴人填寫表格102，附上一頁手寫理據。上訴人指他是家中經濟支柱，依靠駕駛客貨車維生，有關判刑使他面對很大的經濟壓力。上訴人希望法庭能發回駕駛執照，但「同意及接受其他判處。」 上訴理據的討論 裁判官是因應案情、控罪的性質和上訴人的求情因素才作出判刑。 裁判官在其判刑理由書指出： 「意外發生之時更是早上8時，街上有行人應該不少。要是司機駕駛之時有適度的專注，留意路面情況，斷無見不到路上行人之理。被告為超越前車，把車子駛入相反的行車[線]，然後把車子駛右轉入弼街，並把正在橫過馬路的路人撞倒。」 裁判官認為案情較「普通不小心駕駛案件嚴重。」 裁判官說上訴人在4年之內，干犯了3次不小心駕駛的罪行。裁判官認為上訴人要「重溫交通規條，以及令他能理解到要擁有駕駛資格這種特權，他得對駕駛及道路規則有正確的態度和認識。」 裁判官亦知悉上訴人是以駕駛客貨車維生，是職業司機，但在考慮社會大眾，特別是道路使用者的安全，才作出判罰。而在本案，那女士更不幸地因上訴人的不小心駕駛而喪生。本席認為在這基礎上，裁判官的判刑並沒有在原則上犯錯，而判處亦不是過重。 結論 綜觀各項因素，本席駁回上訴人就第一項控罪判刑的上訴，維持原判。本席不作出任何訟費的頒令。 ( 陳廣池 ) 高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官 答辯人： 由律政司高級檢控官黃俊賢代表香港特別行政區 上訴人： 無律師代表，親自應訊