Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Screening breath test

Legal area

Court

31 Jul 2013

HKSAR v. WAI WING HONG

Citation

HKSAR v. WAI WING HONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA763/2012

Conviction affirmed because admitted facts and certificates established that the officers were trained screening breath test operators, no expertise beyond training was required to operate the devices, the Lion Alcolmeter result justified requiring a Drager Alcotest screening test under s39B(1)(a), and all six failed attempts were due to insufficient blowing under s39B(10); sentence was reduced because the lower court had not considered the discretion under s39B(8) to treat the prior conviction as spent, warranting reduction of the disqualification period from 5 to 2 years.
31 Jan 2002

HKSAR v. HOLMES JOHN PALMER

Citation

HKSAR v. HOLMES JOHN PALMER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA585/2001

Although the appellant was charged under s39B(1)(a), the evidence and trial conduct established the matter fell under s39B(2); the appellate court has power under the Magistrates Ordinance to substitute a conviction to the correct subsection where no injustice results and, in exceptional circumstances, may do so without ordering a retrial; accordingly the conviction is varied to s39B(2) and (6) and the original sentence is applied to the substituted conviction.