Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breath test evidence

Legal area

Court

28 Apr 2021

香港特別行政區訴吳炳財

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1123
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA203/2020

The Court held the magistrate did not err in principle and the immediate concurrent terms of 10 days' imprisonment were not manifestly excessive given the appellant's breath alcohol exceeded the legal limit by more than three times, the appellant caused a collision while under the influence, showed limited genuine remorse and attempted to shift blame, and the need for deterrence in light of the offence's prevalence justified a custodial sentence.
28 Mar 2019

香港特別行政區訴陳啟圖

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 835
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA490/2018

The trial judge lawfully and carefully applied the Turnbull guidelines, reasonably accepted the police officer's identification based on close proximity, adequate lighting and continuous observation, and correctly concluded the evidence (including a breath test of 73 µg/100 ml) established guilt; appellate interference was unwarranted.
14 Jul 2015

HKSAR v. NG YEE MAN YVONNE

Citation

HKSAR v. NG YEE MAN YVONNE
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC18/2015

Section 39C(12) is an evidentiary provision supplying admissible proof of alcohol level but is not a conclusive deeming that extinguishes the possibility of proof of post‑offence consumption; therefore supplying alcohol to a driver awaiting a breath test can constitute an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice because it tends to affect the evidence on which curial proceedings depend; the applicant's challenges were unarguable and did not establish substantial and grave injustice, so leave to appeal and certification are refused.
9 Sept 2008

HKSAR v. SIU TING CHEONG

Citation

HKSAR v. SIU TING CHEONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA706/2008

The court dismissed the appeal because the magistrate did not misapply his sentencing discretion: the appellant's breath alcohol level (64 micrograms/100ml, nearly three times the legal limit), his conduct in leaving the scene which delayed testing, and his prior careless driving convictions justified a disqualification period of 15 months consistent with authorities; no irrationality or unfair bias was shown.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 吳炳財

香港特別行政區 訴 陳啟圖

HKSAR v. NG YEE MAN YVONNE

HKSAR v. SIU TING CHEONG

香港特別行政區訴吳炳財

香港特別行政區訴陳啟圖