25 Mar 2026
The court accepted the contemporaneous dashcam (P4) and witness evidence showing the appellant was driving at speed in the inner lane, did not signal or slow, and deliberately cut left into the complainant's lane causing the collision; those facts established careless driving beyond reasonable doubt and warranted upholding conviction and fine.
29 Jan 2026
On rehearing the court accepted PW1's testimony and the dashcam footage as reliable and decisive; the footage showed the appellant's taxi adopted a right-turn trajectory early, entered the zebra crossing and encroached PW1's lane causing PW1 to brake to avoid collision; that conduct satisfied the statutory standard for careless driving under RTO s38(1) and proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
27 Aug 2025
On re-hearing the court reviewed the dashcam and all evidence, concluded appellant in a few seconds decelerated and performed multiple lane changes crossing double white/chevron markings and stopped in a hazardous position; the trial judge's credibility findings and acceptance of the dashcam as accurate were correct; prosecution proved dangerous driving beyond reasonable doubt; appeal dismissed.
14 May 2025
On rehearing the court accepted the trial judge's credibility assessment and the unambiguous dashcam footage showing the appellant drove directly into the taxi's lane without adequate observation or turning; that conduct fell below the standard required by s38(1) Cap.374 and established careless driving beyond reasonable doubt, and the HK$1,500 fine was within the permissible and appropriate range, so the appeal on conviction and sentence is dismissed.
25 Jul 2024
On rehearing the High Court accepted the prosecution witness's evidence as credible and consistent with the video fragment: the Road Users' Code distances are only guidance and not determinative at the lower speeds claimed; limitations of the dashcam and ordinary variations in reaction/braking performance meant the witness's account was not inherently impossible; therefore the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the magistrate's conviction was upheld.
15 May 2023
The court was satisfied the dashcam footage was authentic and corroborated PW1's account that the appellant suddenly cut into PW1's lane at very close distance causing braking and swerving; that conduct fell below the standard required by s38(1) Road Traffic Ordinance and therefore constituted careless driving, so the magistrate's conviction was upheld.
4 Apr 2022
The dashcam evidence (D1) corroborated prosecution witnesses and showed the appellant suddenly accelerated and drove at about 30 km/h in close proximity to pedestrians (including closest approach ~90 cm) giving pedestrians no time to expect or avoid the vehicle; the trial magistrate's adverse credibility findings of the appellant and acceptance of prosecution witnesses were not plainly wrong; on the objective test in s37 the appellant's driving amounted to dangerous driving, so the conviction was safe and must be upheld.
31 Jul 2020
The trial judge was entitled to accept the prosecution witness's account that the appellant failed to check the blind spot and cut into the adjacent lane causing the collision; the appellate court, conducting a rehearing on the record, found no material error in the judge's credibility assessments or in her treatment of dashcam evidence (which has perspective distortion), and therefore upheld the conviction as proved beyond reasonable doubt.
8 Apr 2020
The trial judge correctly accepted the prosecution witness and dashcam evidence; the appellant's account was inconsistent and not credible, and even if the flash and shadow had occurred a reasonably careful driver would have slowed or stopped rather than illegally turning across lanes, therefore the appellant's driving constituted careless driving and the conviction was properly upheld.
6 Mar 2020
The judge lawfully exercised discretion by considering the appellant's on‑scene statements, interview record and dashcam footage which collectively showed conduct and ambiguity sufficient to constitute a 'special reason' to refuse costs; there was no misdirection or irrationality in the judge's reasoning and the appeal is dismissed.