保釋等候上訴的成功機會門檻？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 張國良 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：朱芬齡法官 - 判決日期：2013年11月5日 ### 案情摘要 申請人張國良在區域法院被裁定一項危險駕駛引致他人死亡罪名成立，判處監禁15個月。他另承認兩項車輛欠妥罪，各判罰款1,000元。申請人現正申請保釋等候上訴。案情指，申請人於2012年7月31日駕駛貨車，從北河街左一線右轉進入海壇街時，撞倒一名86歲男子，導致其死亡。北河街左一線不准右轉，申請人當時違反交通標誌。警員到場發現貨車右前倒後鏡凹陷，路面無剎車痕跡。申請人向警員表示轉彎時聽到碰撞聲，停車後發現死者躺在地上，並稱看不見死者從何處出來。 ### 核心法律爭議 申請人申請保釋等候上訴，主要爭議點在於其上訴是否有極高或合理的成功機會。申請人一方認為原審法官裁決基礎缺乏證據支持，僅屬不小心駕駛而非危險駕駛，並指出沒有證據顯示申請人必然會看見死者或可避免意外，且其違反交通指示右轉並未增加危險性，亦無證據顯示車速不當。答辯人則反對申請，認為申請人的上訴理據不能成立。 ### 判決理由 法庭只有在極例外情況下才會批准保釋等候上訴，申請人必須證明上訴有極高成功機會，或刑期很短且上訴聆訊時已服畢大部分刑期，以致不批保釋不公允。若基於刑期很短，則須證明上訴理由有合理成功機會。本席認為原審法官的裁斷，即申請人在右邊視野無阻下完全不察覺死者，唯一的推論是其右轉時沒有清楚察看前方情況，這既基於案中證據亦合乎常理。原審法官採納的危險駕駛測試準則與《道路交通條例》第36(4)、(6)和(7)條規定一致。本席不認為申請人的上訴享有合理的成功機會。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了 HKSAR v Lau Man Kin [2010] 1 HKLRD 336，確立了保釋等候上訴的門檻，即申請人須證明上訴有極高成功機會，或刑期短且已服畢大部分刑期。此外，判決書提及香港特別行政區 訴 林志發 [2012] 1 HKLRD 961，以支持原審法官採納的危險駕駛測試準則與《道路交通條例》規定一致。申請人一方則援引 R v Conteh [2004] RTR1，但法庭認為該案情況與本案有顯著不同。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭拒絕了申請人張國良保釋等候上訴的申請。儘管申請人指出其上訴許可聆訊可能在2014年2月或之後才舉行，屆時他已完成了大部分刑期，但由於上訴的成功機會不高，法庭認為拒絕保釋並非不公允。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了保釋等候上訴的嚴格標準，即申請人必須證明其上訴有極高的成功機會，或在刑期較短的情況下，上訴理由具有合理成功機會。法庭強調，即使被告人已服畢大部分刑期，若上訴成功機會不高，仍可能不獲保釋。判決亦指出，危險駕駛的門檻較高，違例駕駛不必然構成危險駕駛，法庭須根據具體情況和證據作出裁決。 --- ### 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 Cheung Kwok Leung - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Chu J.A. - Date of Judgment: 5 November 2013 ### Factual Background The applicant, Cheung Kwok Leung, was convicted in the District Court of dangerous driving causing death and sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment. He also pleaded guilty to two charges of using defective vehicles, fined HK$1,000 for each. The applicant is now applying for bail pending appeal. The incident occurred on 31 July 2012, when the applicant, driving a lorry, made a right turn from the leftmost lane of Pei Ho Street into Hai Tan Street, hitting an 86-year-old man and causing his death. The leftmost lane of Pei Ho Street is for going straight only, meaning the applicant violated traffic signs. Police found the lorry's right front wing mirror dented and no brake marks on the road. The applicant told police he heard a collision sound during the turn, stopped, and found the deceased on the ground, claiming he did not see where the deceased came from. ### Key Legal Issues The applicant's application for bail pending appeal primarily hinges on whether his appeal has a very high or reasonable prospect of success. The applicant argued that the trial judge's findings lacked evidentiary support, contending it was merely careless driving, not dangerous driving. He claimed there was no evidence he would have seen the deceased or could have avoided the accident, and that his traffic violation did not increase danger, nor was there evidence of inappropriate speed. The respondent opposed the application, arguing the applicant's grounds of appeal were without merit. ### Ratio Decidendi Bail pending appeal is granted only in exceptional circumstances. The applicant must demonstrate a very high probability of success on appeal, or that the sentence is so short that by the time the appeal is heard, a substantial part or all of the sentence would have been served, rendering refusal of bail unjust. If based on a short sentence, the applicant must show reasonable prospects of success. The court found the trial judge's inference that the applicant failed to observe the road ahead, despite an unobstructed view, was the only logical conclusion based on evidence and common sense. The trial judge's criteria for dangerous driving were consistent with sections 36(4), (6), and (7) of the Road Traffic Ordinance. The court concluded the applicant's appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited HKSAR v Lau Man Kin [2010] 1 HKLRD 336, which established the high threshold for bail pending appeal, requiring a very high probability of success or a short sentence with reasonable prospects. HKSAR v Lam Chi Fat [2012] 1 HKLRD 961 was also mentioned to support the trial judge's dangerous driving criteria aligning with the Road Traffic Ordinance. The applicant cited R v Conteh [2004] RTR1, but the court distinguished it due to significant factual differences. ### Decision & Orders The court refused the applicant Cheung Kwok Leung's application for bail pending appeal. Despite the applicant's argument that his leave to appeal hearing might not occur until February 2014 or later, by which time he would have served most of his sentence, the court found the prospects of success on appeal to be low, and thus, refusing bail was not unjust. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the stringent criteria for bail pending appeal, requiring applicants to demonstrate either a very high probability of success on appeal or, for shorter sentences, a reasonable prospect of success. The court emphasized that even if a significant portion of the sentence has been served, bail may still be denied if the appeal's prospects are low. The ruling also clarified that the threshold for dangerous driving is high, and a traffic violation does not automatically constitute dangerous driving; each case must be decided on its specific facts and evidence. --- ### 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.