17 Jan 2018
Leave to appeal was granted because the amended perfected grounds raised an arguable complaint that the trial judge's reasons were inadequate and that the conviction might be unsafe, meeting the low threshold for leave.
29 Apr 2012
The court accepted the magistrate's credibility findings, relied on the appellant's admissible statement to the police and traffic signal timing evidence showing the appellant entered on red; that conduct fell far below the standard of a competent and careful driver and accordingly constituted dangerous driving under s 37(1), so the conviction was upheld.
22 Oct 2010
The uncontradicted testimony of PW1, an experienced traffic officer, that the appellant maintained a relatively high speed and entered the junction against a red light without slowing justified the Magistrate's inference that the appellant's driving fell far below that of a competent and careful driver and therefore constituted dangerous driving; the 8‑month disqualification was within the Magistrate's sentencing discretion and not excessive.
15 Aug 2001
On the balance of probabilities the court preferred the plaintiff's witness and found Miss Koo had the green light; the defendant misread/was mistaken about the traffic signal and accordingly was liable for the collision; damages and costs were awarded to the plaintiff and a certificate for counsel was refused.
18 May 2001
The court preferred the plaintiff's account, found the defendant had jumped the red light and was wholly responsible for the collision; the plaintiff did not contribute to the accident and the defendant is liable.
21 Mar 2000
The magistrate permissibly rejected PW3 as unreliable and accepted the consistent evidence of the two taxi drivers and the traffic‑management witness; on those findings the traffic light for Choi Hung Road was red and the conviction for careless driving was supported, so the appeal is dismissed.
25 Aug 1998
The conviction was upheld because the magistrate, acting within his fact‑finding role, accepted eyewitness evidence and physical evidence that the Appellant did not slow sufficiently when approaching a light‑controlled pedestrian crossing; therefore he drove at an inappropriate speed and breached the duty to take precautions even though the lights favored vehicles.
26 Jul 1994
The magistrate was entitled to prefer the prosecution witnesses; accepted evidence established that the Appellant drove into the junction when the lights were red against him, which constituted a departure from the standard of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver and justified conviction for careless driving; appellate court will not interfere with such factual findings absent unsustainable reasoning.
14 Oct 1980
The magistrate's findings that the appellant failed to keep a proper lookout and emerged without sufficient caution were supported by the witness evidence (including the motorcycle speed and first sighting of the car), the position of the car after impact and the constable's inspection; these facts justified upholding the conviction for careless driving and dismissing the appeal.