21 May 2025
The appeal is dismissed because the sentencing magistrate did not err in principle or impose a sentence that was manifestly excessive; given the appellant's repeated speeding offences, the short interval after completing a driving improvement course and the seriousness of exceeding the limit by 47 km/h, a two-year driving disqualification was proportionate and necessary for deterrence.
7 Dec 2022
The trial judge correctly accepted the prosecution experts and rejected the defence expert as unreliable; the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was driving at 119 km/h and the sentence imposed (HK$2,000 fine, six‑month disqualification and requirement to complete a driving improvement course) complied with statutory requirements and was not manifestly excessive, therefore the sentencing appeal is dismissed.
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.
14 Apr 2022
Given the appellant drove at not less than 126 km/h (exceeding the limit by over 45 km/h), offered no special reasons to displace mandatory provisions, and had relevant antecedents, the court correctly applied statutory mandatory minimums and discretionary considerations and found the 8‑month disqualification and driving improvement course order lawful and not manifestly excessive.
22 Nov 2021
The Court found the HK$4,000 fine to be manifestly excessive given the circumstances and the guilty plea and substituted it with HK$3,000; the Court also held there was no evidence of poor driving skills or other justification for an order to retake the driving test and set that order aside because it amounted to an unjustified additional punitive measure.
16 Apr 2020
A one‑third guilty‑plea discount for sentencing does not automatically apply to the statutory minimum period of driving disqualification; disqualification periods are forward‑looking, statutory in character and must meet the minimum unless special reasons exist. The 12‑month disqualification was not manifestly excessive and the appeal against sentence fails.
25 Sept 2019
The appellate court held the magistrate did not err in principle or exercise of discretion. The magistrate was entitled to rely on the prosecution summary recording speed at 82 km/h, to treat the companies persistent non-response as deliberate concealment in the circumstances, and to adopt a 10x starting multiplier under Yeung. The resulting fine of HKD 6,000 reduced by one-third to HKD 4,000 was not manifestly excessive and the appeal was dismissed.
11 Jan 2018
The court held that the differing penalties in the tunnel subsidiary legislation and the Road Traffic Ordinance do not constitute the 'inconsistency' contemplated by Cap.474 s.21(1); the Road Traffic Ordinance applies to offences in the Tai Lam Tunnel toll area, the prosecution properly charged under s.41, and the mandatory disqualification under s.41(3) is lawfully imposed; accordingly the conviction and sentence were upheld.
3 Nov 2017
The judge accepted prosecution expert evidence, calibration records and operator testimony that the ProVida 2000 system was operating normally and that no demonstrated defect in pulse output or calibration created a reasonable doubt; accordingly the recorded speed of 149.9 km/h was properly found and the conviction and sentence were upheld; costs of HKD 3,000 were awarded under Cap.492 s13(a) and s15.
6 Aug 2014
Given the undisputed facts and the absence of any unsafe or unsatisfactory finding in the trial proceedings, the appellate court will not interfere with the trial judge's conviction; complaints about signage are policy matters for authorities and do not afford a legal basis to overturn the conviction.