26 Apr 2024
香港特別行政區 訴 吳毅禮
- Citation
- [2024] HKCFI 1395
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA26/2023
Photographic and video evidence and eyewitness testimony established that the contested stretch was a pedestrian path by reference to paving, markings and connecting features; the appellant produced no evidence to support an honest and reasonable belief that it was not a footpath; a reasonable cyclist would have recognised the difference; therefore the prosecution proved the offence under Cap 228 s.4(8) beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction is upheld.