Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm

Legal area

Court

18 May 2026

HKSAR v. FUNG KA WAI ROGER

Citation

[2026] HKCA 979
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC81/2024

The Court held that (1) section 44(3) RTO should not be given a rigid, mechanistic interpretation mandating an automatic, immovable addition of the s44(2) minimum period to any other disqualification; courts must ensure the effective disqualification after release is reasonable and preventative; (2) there is no general jurisdiction to order disqualification to commence at a future date except where statute provides; (3) in CACC136/2024 the 7‑year disqualification on Chow was not excessive given his persistent record and the effective post‑release impact; appeal dismissed; (4) in CACC81/2024 F…
7 Feb 2025

HKSAR v. TAM TAK KWAN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1058
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA315/2024

On rehearing the recorded video evidence showed the taxi started to move on amber-with-red and struck a pedestrian who was already in the crossing; the driver failed to keep a proper lookout and did not apply brakes until seconds after impact, conduct that on the facts fell far below that of a competent and careful driver; accordingly conviction is safe and immediate term of imprisonment of 4 months and a 2-year driving disqualification were appropriate and upheld.
11 Dec 2024

香港特別行政區訴歐曜榮

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3501
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA496/2023

On rehearing the court found the driving‑recorder video and the expert evidence created a real and plausible basis that the appellant suffered a sudden incapacitating medical event (LVNC) at the material moment; the trial judge lacked sufficient basis to wholly reject the appellant and expert evidence, and therefore the prosecution did not prove the dangerous driving offence beyond reasonable doubt; conviction quashed.
11 Feb 2022

律政司司長訴葉慧善

Citation

[2022] HKCA 226
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR12/2021

The Court concluded the original sentence for count 3 (dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm) was manifestly inadequate because the sentencing judge failed to sufficiently reflect the high objective dangerousness and moral culpability of using a vehicle as an instrument of criminality and the severe, partly permanent injuries to the victim; the appropriate starting point for count 3 was 45 months reduced to 30 months for the guilty plea, with the other counts retained and the total sentence set at 42 months and then reduced by a further 3 months due to the proximity of earliest relea…
19 Dec 2019

香港特別行政區訴區令聞

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1423
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC104/2018

The trial judge's core factual findings and handling of conflicting evidence were unsafe; on the true assessment of the evidence the appellant's conduct amounted to careless driving rather than dangerous driving, therefore the conviction for dangerous driving was quashed and substituted with a conviction for careless driving, while the sentence of 200 hours community service was maintained.
2 Jul 2019

香港特別行政區對區令聞

Citation

[2019] HKCA 733
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC104/2018

Leave to appeal was granted because the trial judge convicted on the basis of the defence case without sufficient analysis; the factual and evaluative question whether the applicant's u‑turn constituted dangerous driving is contentious and properly requires determination by the trial tribunal or on full appeal rather than being resolved at the leave stage.
17 Apr 2019

香港特別行政區訴施清爽

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 996
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA518/2018

Where dangerous driving causes serious injury the appropriate sentence depends on actual degree of culpability; momentary distraction or non‑extreme fatigue is mitigating and warrants a lower starting point than cases of high culpability (such as high speed or extreme fatigue); a 25% guilty plea discount is appropriate; applying those principles reduced the custodial term from 18 to 11 months.
9 Jun 2017

香港特別行政區訴林詠詩

Citation

香港特別行政區訴林詠詩
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC216/2016

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave because the trial judge reasonably preferred and accepted the prosecution eyewitness evidence, properly identified methodological and factual weaknesses in the defence expert's opinion, and her conclusion that the conviction was safe was not vitiated by reversible error despite some analytical slips.
15 Jan 2013

HKSAR v. CHAN CHI CHIU LOUIS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN CHI CHIU LOUIS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC249/2012

The Court held that the applicant's driving constituted a serious error of judgment rather than blatant disregard for safety; while speed was an element it did not amount to such an aggravating feature as to place the case in the most serious category, and accordingly the sentence of three years imprisonment was excessive and should be reduced to two years imprisonment while leaving the disqualification and mandatory driving course orders intact.
17 Aug 2012

HKSAR v. CHAN CHI CHIU, LOUIS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN CHI CHIU, LOUIS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC249/2012

Bail was refused because the Court concluded the appeal lacked prima facie merit given the trial judge's cogent findings that eyewitnesses consistently described the other vehicle inching out and that the applicant had ample time and opportunity to avoid the collision; the expert evidence was properly rejected and there was no sufficient risk the applicant would have served a reduced sentence before the appeal hearing to justify bail.