Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Drunk driving

  • 22 Dec 2022

    香港特別行政區 訴 林明樂

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 3410
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA544/2021

    The appellate court affirmed the sentencing judge had a sufficient evidential basis to infer the appellant was severely alcohol‑impaired from the totality of evidence (dashcam/CCTV, witness observations, hospital behaviour and lack of mechanical failure), such impairment was a legitimate aggravating factor for careless driving, and having balanced aggravating and mitigating factors the sentence of 18 days immediate imprisonment plus two‑year driving disqualification and mandatory driving improvement course was not manifestly excessive or legally erroneous.

  • 6 Dec 2021

    香港特別行政區 訴 梁嘉陞

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 3638
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA62/2021

    Immediate imprisonment was an error in principle and manifestly excessive given the marginal exceedance of the statutory limit (25 vs 22 micrograms/100ml), absence of accident, injury or property damage, and the appellant's related prior conviction being 8 years old; sentence substituted with a fine of HK$9,000 while disqualification and course requirements were maintained.

  • 22 Oct 2021

    香港特別行政區 訴 李尚衡

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 2989
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA303/2021

    The court allowed the appeal in part and resentenced the appellant for the drink‑driving conviction: while the magistrate rightly treated the offence as serious and immediate custody as permissible given the collision and damage, the magistrate had placed excessive weight on a 20‑year‑old prior conviction and insufficient weight on completed restitution and mitigation; accordingly the appropriate custodial sentence was reduced to a term of 9 days (to reflect time already served and permit immediate release) while maintaining the 12‑month driving disqualification and requirement to self‑fund t…

  • 14 Aug 2017

    HKSAR v. LAW WING FAI

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LAW WING FAI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA476/2016

    A clause excluding liability where the proportion of alcohol in a driver’s breath/blood/urine exceeds the prescribed limit is a restriction by reference to the driver’s physical condition and therefore, by operation of s.12(1)(a) MVIO, is of no effect as regards liabilities required to be covered; accordingly the policies remained compliant and the appellants’ convictions under s.4(1) MVIO were unsustainable and were set aside.

  • 11 Sept 2006

    HKSAR v. FIELDER, DAVID PAUL LEWIS

    Citation
    HKSAR v. FIELDER, DAVID PAUL LEWIS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA679/2006

    The magistrate's credibility findings were lawful and rational: he was entitled to accept the police evidence that the appellant understood and ignored requests for his licence, to reject the appellant's account as inherently unbelievable without reversing the burden of proof, and to conclude the photographic evidence did not suffice to undermine the prosecution narrative; accordingly the convictions on the appealed charges were upheld.

  • 8 Dec 2005

    HKSAR v. LAI LEUNG YUK

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LAI LEUNG YUK
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1165/2005

    The magistrate, having evaluated credibility and accepted the prosecution witnesses and medical/documentary evidence, permissibly found the appellant refused to submit a blood specimen and that her stated reason (that drawing blood was bad for her health) was not a reasonable excuse; accordingly the conviction was upheld and the appeal dismissed.