18 Feb 2025
The convictions for failing to stop and failing to report were quashed because the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the dog’s injuries were caused by a traffic accident or contact with the appellant’s vehicle; the available video and witness evidence were insufficient to establish causation or that an accident occurred.
30 Jun 2022
The court accepted the open‑source video evidence as prima facie authentic and the expert reconstruction speed estimate (with acknowledged margin of error) together with direct visual observations (pronounced lean angle, lack of deceleration, crossing into opposing lane) and concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant's driving was dangerous and caused the victim's serious injury; the court also found the appellant left the scene before police attended, moved his vehicle and did not report within a reasonable practicable time, thus upholding convictions on all three counts.
19 Oct 2021
The appellate court found the magistrate plainly erred in concluding there was a gap between the pedestrians through which the appellant drove at high speed; because that critical factual finding was unsupported by the evidence and the magistrate had earlier accepted irreconcilable discrepancies about the route, the prosecution had not properly established the offence of careless driving and the conviction was quashed and sentence set aside.
22 Aug 2019
The Court allowed the appeal in part: it upheld the 3-year starting point for theft but adjusted multiple individual sentences to reflect true culpability, substituted non-custodial or reduced sentences for careless driving and failure to stop/report, and held that where the DPP's practice means the narcotic content is not quantified for seizures under 1g the prosecution must adduce evidence (direct or inferred) to justify application of Mok Cho Tik; absent such material the offender must be sentenced on the basis that the narcotic may be insufficient to be measured or used, warranting a much…
2 Jul 2019
Conviction for dangerous driving was upheld because repeated, foreseeable collisions with a person known to be standing in front of the vehicle, with increasing speed and onward driving after initial impact, met the standard of dangerous driving. Convictions for failing to stop and failing to report were quashed because the conduct was properly characterised as deliberate use of the vehicle to strike the person (an intentional assault) rather than an "accident" within the statutory meaning; therefore the statutory offences could not be sustained.
26 Aug 2015
The magistrate's acceptance of Tang's evidence together with the police video established that the appellant changed lanes without due care, his left mirror struck Tang's right mirror, and therefore the elements of careless driving were satisfied; the appellate court found those factual findings and inferences were open on the evidence and not plainly wrong, so the conviction and fine were upheld.
14 Aug 2014
The appellate court found that the unexplained discrepancy in the complainant's evidence about distance created a real and unresolved doubt which the trial judge failed to confront properly and effectively placed an evidential burden on the defence; therefore the careless driving conviction was unsafe and must be quashed, and the dependent offences based on that primary offence likewise fell.
18 Jun 2014
On rehearing the court found the evidence did not support the convictions and there were no positive reasons related to the appellant's conduct to deny costs; accordingly the appellant is entitled to costs under s8 Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance and s120 Magistrates Ordinance, guided by Tong Cun Lin and Kwok Moon-yan.
22 Jul 2011
Conviction for careless driving (Charge 1) quashed because magistrate's rejection of defendant's evidence alone did not constitute positive evidence of carelessness in the context of wet, slippery downhill conditions; convictions for failing to stop (s56(1)(b)) and failing to report/give particulars (s56(2A)) were properly sustained because the magistrate accepted the security guard's evidence that the appellant did not remain and did not report, and the two statutory offences are distinct so convictions on both stand.
22 Jul 2011
The convictions were quashed because the magistrate's sole finding of careless driving rested on a misapprehension of the road layout and traffic light relevance and upon inadmissible lay opinion evidence from an unqualified police witness; there was insufficient admissible evidence that a collision causing damage occurred or that the appellant knew of it, so the offences were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.