Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Causing death by dangerous driving

Legal area

Court

26 Mar 2025

HKSAR v. BABBS WILLIAM JAMES

Citation

[2025] HKDC 634
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC979/2022

The defendant's conduct amounted to a course of action causing a dangerous error of judgment leading to death; with no aggravating factors a starting point of 15 months' imprisonment was appropriate, reduced by 3 months for mitigation to 12 months' immediate imprisonment; ancillary orders include 5 years' driving disqualification and requirement to complete a Driving Improvement Course within three months of disqualification expiry.
29 May 2020

HKSAR v. SO WAI KEUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCA 346
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC295/2018

The Court held the trial judge properly resolved alleged inconsistencies and was entitled to accept PW1's evidence; the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for an approximately 11‑month delay to seek leave to appeal sentence and had no arguable ground that the sentence was excessive; accordingly renewed leave to appeal conviction and extension of time to appeal sentence were refused and the appeal dismissed.
5 Nov 2019

香港特別行政區訴區國耀

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1246
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC101/2019

The trial judge correctly found on the facts that the applicant failed to pay proper attention to the road despite foreseeable pedestrian risk, exceeded a safe speed for the circumstances, and therefore his driving was far below the standard of a competent and careful driver and constituted dangerous driving causing death; there was no arguable ground to grant leave to appeal conviction.
30 Aug 2019

HKSAR v. MAN CHUN PUN

Citation

[2019] HKCA 159
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC83/2018

The Court held that while driving a public service vehicle dangerously is a serious aggravating factor and the appellant's driving was 'continuous and reckless' on the evidence, the judge's adopted starting points were too high because the cause of prolonged inattention was unknown; accordingly the appropriate starting points were adjusted to 4 years (Charge 1) and 2.5 years (Charge 2), each reduced by 25% for a late guilty plea, and totality applied by making 9 months of Charge 2 consecutive resulting in the same aggregate term of 3 years 9 months imprisonment; the driving improvement order…
26 Aug 2019

HKSAR v. SO WAI KEUNG

Citation

[2019] HKCA 970
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC295/2018

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable ground: the trial judge considered and reasonably resolved inconsistencies, was entitled to prefer PW1's evidence over distracted passengers, counsel made tactical choices (e.g. not seeking audio playback) and the judge could infer motive and intention from primary facts; there was no irrationality or material misapprehension justifying appellate intervention.
7 Nov 2018

HKSAR v. MAN CHUN PUN

Citation

[2018] HKCA 797
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC83/2018

Leave to appeal against sentence was granted because the appellant raised reasonably arguable grounds challenging the judge's assessment of culpability and aggravating factors (including proper application of Cooksley and factual findings on speed, continuity of dangerous driving and medical condition), and because the issue of orders under s71(1B) was conceded by the respondent.
10 Nov 2015

HKSAR v. TO CHAK HANG

Citation

HKSAR v. TO CHAK HANG
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC39/2015

Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge's decision that the respondent's driving did not fall below the standard of a careful and competent driver was a factual evaluation, not a departure from legal norms, and therefore did not amount to the substantial and grave injustice required under s32(2).
17 Jan 2013

HKSAR v. CHUNG HUNG PAN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHUNG HUNG PAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC242/2012

The Court refused leave to appeal because the sentence of 22 months imprisonment (after appropriate reductions for guilty plea and assistance) and a 3‑year driving disqualification were within the permissible range given the serious and reckless driving; limited comparative materials did not oblige a different starting point; surrender of the licence as a bail condition was lawful under s9D(2)(b) CPO and the premature transmission to the Commissioner under s71, though erroneous, caused no prejudice and did not entitle the applicant to credit absent statutory provision.
29 Mar 2007

HKSAR v. SHEK MING YAU

Citation

HKSAR v. SHEK MING YAU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA879/2006

The Appellant's deliberate crossing of continuous double white lines so that his vehicle was wholly on the wrong carriageway while negotiating a bend constituted dangerous driving because it fell far below the standard of a competent and careful driver and would obviously be dangerous; accordingly the appeal against conviction was dismissed.
3 Nov 2006

HKSAR v. LIU CHUN PONG

Citation

HKSAR v. LIU CHUN PONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC536/2005

The Court held the trial judge erred in failing to treat the defendants' conduct as falling within the most serious category of dangerous driving causing death; given the prolonged, deliberate and selfish disregard for public safety, maximum statutory sentences for the respective offences and a substantial disqualification were required; no discount on review was appropriate.