保釋等候上訴的條件？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v CHAN CHI CHIU, LOUIS - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal) - 法官：唐兆傑副庭長 (Hon Tang VP) - 判決日期：2012年8月10日 ### 案情摘要 申請人因「危險駕駛引致他人身體受嚴重傷害」罪名被定罪，並被判處監禁三年。他現申請保釋等候上訴，反對定罪及判刑。案發時，申請人以時速80至90公里駕駛，超出50公里時速限制，並與一輛從停車場駛出的車輛相撞。原審法官裁定申請人有足夠時間和機會注意到另一輛車，但因超速及未有保持適當警覺而未能避免事故。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議為申請人是否應獲准保釋等候上訴。申請方主張原審法官錯誤依賴申請人有145米視線範圍的事實，並認為目擊證人對另一輛車出現時間的估計，顯示申請人當時距離較短。控方則認為原審法官的裁決有充分理據支持。 ### 判決理由 法庭審理保釋申請時，主要考慮兩個因素：上訴是否有很大可能成功，或上訴聆訊前申請人是否會服畢大部分或全部刑期。就本案而言，法庭認為申請人提出的上訴理由，未能初步顯示上訴有很大可能成功。對於判刑上訴，雖然受害人傷勢嚴重，但沒有造成嚴重永久傷殘，法庭願意假設判刑上訴可能成功，但不足以導致申請人在上訴聆訊前服畢減刑後的刑期。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 法庭拒絕申請人保釋等候上訴的申請。法庭認為申請人針對定罪的上訴沒有實際成功的機會，而針對判刑的上訴即使可能成功，也不會導致申請人在上訴聆訊前服畢減刑後的刑期。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了保釋等候上訴的嚴格標準，即上訴必須有很大可能成功，或存在服畢大部分刑期的風險。即使判刑上訴可能成功，若減刑幅度不足以影響服刑時間，仍不足以獲准保釋。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: HKSAR v CHAN CHI CHIU, LOUIS - Court: Court of Appeal - Judge: Hon Tang VP - Date of Judgment: 10 August 2012 ### Factual Background The applicant was convicted of "causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving" and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. He applied for bail pending appeal against both conviction and sentence. At the time of the accident, the applicant was driving at 80-90 km/h, exceeding the 50 km/h speed limit, and collided with a vehicle emerging from a car park. The trial judge found that the applicant had ample time and opportunity to notice the other vehicle but failed to avoid the accident due to excessive speed and lack of proper lookout. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail pending appeal. The applicant argued that the trial judge wrongly relied on the 145-meter line of vision and that eyewitness estimates suggested the other vehicle appeared much closer. The prosecution maintained that the trial judge's findings were well-supported. ### Ratio Decidendi The court considers two main factors for bail pending appeal: whether the appeal is prima facie likely to be successful, or whether there is a risk that a substantial part of the sentence would be served by the time the appeal is heard. In this case, the court found that the applicant's grounds for appeal did not prima facie indicate a high likelihood of success. Regarding the sentence appeal, although the victim suffered grievous bodily harm, there was no serious permanent disability. The court was prepared to assume the sentence appeal might succeed, but not to an extent that the applicant would have served the reduced term by the time of the appeal hearing. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The court refused the applicant's application for bail pending appeal. The court determined that the appeal against conviction had no realistic chance of success, and even if the appeal against sentence were to succeed, it would not result in the applicant serving the reduced term before the appeal hearing. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the strict criteria for bail pending appeal, emphasizing that an appeal must be highly likely to succeed or present a risk of serving a substantial portion of the sentence. Even a potential success in a sentence appeal may not be sufficient if the reduction in sentence does not significantly impact the time served before the appeal is heard. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.