Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Drink-driving

  • 27 May 2022

    HKSAR v. KO YUN SANG

    Citation
    [2022] HKCA 751
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC202/2020

    The Court reduced the disqualification on Charge 1 from 5 to 3 years because the appellant's offence was a first conviction committed in circumstances of aggravation (tier 3) which raises the statutory minimum to 3 years, and having considered mitigating factors (23-year impeccable driving record, employment hardship and the need for the disqualification to have actual preventive effect given the 20-month prison term), the 5-year order was manifestly excessive and unsupported by reasons; 3 years is appropriate.

  • 10 May 2022

    香港特別行政區 訴 鄺錫源

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 1313
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA389/2021

    The appeal is dismissed because the sentencing judge properly exercised discretion under RTO s39A(3), took into account the appellant's old prior conviction and relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sentence imposed (HKD 6,000 fine, 12-month disqualification and mandatory driving improvement course) was not manifestly excessive.

  • 28 Apr 2021

    香港特別行政區 訴 吳炳財

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 1123
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA203/2020

    The Court held the magistrate did not err in principle and the immediate concurrent terms of 10 days' imprisonment were not manifestly excessive given the appellant's breath alcohol exceeded the legal limit by more than three times, the appellant caused a collision while under the influence, showed limited genuine remorse and attempted to shift blame, and the need for deterrence in light of the offence's prevalence justified a custodial sentence.

  • 5 Feb 2016

    SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WADE, IAN FRANCIS

    Citation
    SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WADE, IAN FRANCIS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAAR1/2015

    The sentencing judge erred by failing to give proper weight to significant aggravating factors—breath alcohol 3.36× legal limit, multiple collisions across separate locations, driving away after collisions and prolonged reckless driving—so the appropriate starting point was 9 months imprisonment; applying a one‑third reduction for early guilty plea produced a 6‑month term which the Court imposed but suspended for two years in light of strong mitigation (age, health, good character, low speeds and absence of injury).

  • 11 Aug 2009

    HKSAR v. CHENG MAN KI STEVEN

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHENG MAN KI STEVEN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA189/2009

    No special reasons existed to justify reducing or avoiding the mandatory two-year disqualification under s39A(2); the magistrate's decision to disqualify for two years was correct; although the fine of HK$5,000 was low for a second offence and should have been at least HK$10,000, the appellate judge declined to increase it and dismissed the appeal.

  • 28 Sept 2004

    HKSAR v. HSU, EDMOND YIK MAN

    Citation
    HKSAR v. HSU, EDMOND YIK MAN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA871/2004

    The costs order was quashed because the magistrate (and authorities) established that costs orders must be just and reasonable and normally only imposed in exceptional circumstances; here the appellant pleaded guilty early, did not cause extra prosecution expense and there was insufficient basis to treat the costs as anything other than additional punishment.

  • 28 Nov 2000

    HKSAR v. MOK WAI HUNG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. MOK WAI HUNG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA5/2000

    The sentencing judge lawfully exercised his discretion in concluding that the offence of perverting the course of public justice ordinarily requires immediate custodial sentence; the appellant made a deliberate dishonest statement to police and exceptional circumstances justifying community service were not present, therefore the custodial sentence was appropriate and must be upheld.

  • 6 May 1998

    HKSAR v. HO HO CHUEN

    Citation
    HKSAR v. HO HO CHUEN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA63/1998

    The Magistrate erred by over‑relying on the breath alcohol reading and failing to consider the full circumstances (first offender status, absence of injuries, attempts to avoid collision, and mitigating effect of pending disciplinary consequences); therefore the suspended custodial sentence was wrong in principle and manifestly excessive and should be substituted with a fine and an 18‑month driving disqualification.