10 Oct 2024
The application for a certificate under section 32(2) is refused because the issues raised are matters of factual determination, not points of law of great and general importance, and there is no basis to find substantial and grave unfairness.
27 Sept 2024
The court refused the s32 certificate because the matters relied on by the appellant were factual disputes or credibility assessments and did not raise points of law of major and wide public importance nor demonstrated substantial and grave unfairness at trial.
9 Aug 2024
The magistrate's acceptance of the prosecution witness as honest and reliable and rejection of the appellant's implausible account was reasonable; there was no demonstrable error in the magistrate's factual findings and the appellate court will not disturb them, so the conviction must be upheld.
18 Mar 2024
The dashcam evidence (P1) established that the appellant initiated a lane change without sufficient time and space given the other vehicle's speed and position; the trial judge's factual findings based on P1 were not unreasonable or illogical, and therefore the appellant's driving fell below the standard of a reasonably careful driver, justifying upholding the conviction.
26 Jan 2023
The judge was entitled to find on the evidence, including analysis of the dashcam footage and scene conditions, that a reasonable and attentive driver sitting at the wheel would have seen the pedestrian earlier by observing to the right and therefore failed to exercise the requisite care; the conviction was safe and is upheld.
6 Jun 2022
Video evidence established the appellant was driving slowly to park and the taxi overtook on the left through a disabled parking space and constrained lane created by double parking; the taxi driver's unlawful or unsafe conduct created reasonable doubt as to the appellant's criminal culpability, so conviction could not stand.
25 May 2022
Viewing P2 together with the site photographs, the court concluded the appellant executed a short-angle lane-change into a narrow gap when the light goods vehicle was essentially alongside and moving, and that a reasonable, competent and prudent driver would not have attempted that lane-change; the magistrate's finding was not unreasonable and the conviction for careless driving was properly supported by the evidence and must be upheld.
21 Aug 2020
The trial judge's acceptance of the complainant's credible identification and the corroborating police records justified the conviction; the appellant's denial was properly rejected as implausible and not raised during investigation, and the fine of HKD 3,000 given his three prior careless driving records was within a fair range, so the High Court will not interfere.
8 Jul 2019
Magistrate made a clear, comprehensive inquiry into the basis of the guilty plea; the appellant repeatedly and clearly admitted lack of proper control of the vehicle and the plea was voluntary and informed; the medical records did not show the alleged mental condition or relate to voluntariness and were therefore inadmissible as fresh evidence; the rainfall report did not undermine the admissions and could not affect the conviction. Appeal dismissed.
15 Jun 2018
The appellate court will not disturb the trial judge's acceptance of the prosecution witness absent irrationality or material error; here the trial judge properly assessed the evidence and credibility, which together (eyewitness account corroborated by injuries, police sketch and photos) proved negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt, so the conviction is safe.