13 Jun 2022
Appeal allowed because the evidence (video and expert calculation) showed the cyclist unlawfully entered the road and the collision was inevitable even at the speed limit; the magistrate's inference that the appellant could have detected and braked earlier was unsafe, so the conviction could not stand.
12 Jan 2010
The appellant's conduct constituted careless driving because two seconds provided sufficient time to observe a stationary vehicle and stop; criticisms of the other driver do not constitute a defence, and on the facts the conviction is upheld while the fine is reduced to reflect lower-end mitigation.
20 Feb 2006
Given material uncertainties in key factual matters (actual unobstructed line of sight, appropriate reaction time and the articulated vehicle's propensity to lose directional stability under heavy braking) the conviction for dangerous driving causing death could not be safely sustained; the evidence supported at most careless driving, therefore the conviction was set aside and substituted with a conviction for careless driving contrary to s38(1) of the Ordinance.