危險駕駛引致他人死亡罪的定罪門檻？上訴駁回

### 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：張澤祐法官、朱芬齡法官、潘兆初法官 - 判決日期：2014年1月22日 ### 案情摘要 申請人駕駛一輛貨車從北河街左一線右轉進入海壇街，此舉違反交通標誌。轉彎期間，貨車的右前倒後鏡撞倒一名86歲男子，並輾過其右腳，導致該男子頭部嚴重受傷，最終死亡。申請人聲稱聽到碰撞聲後停車，但看不見死者從何處出來。警方調查發現貨車右邊車頭輕微凹陷，右前倒後鏡向內摺疊，路面無剎車痕跡。控方專家證人指出，若申請人能提早1.5秒察覺死者並緊急煞車，意外可避免。原審法官裁定申請人危險駕駛引致他人死亡罪名成立。 ### 核心法律爭議 申請人就危險駕駛引致他人死亡罪的定罪提出上訴許可申請。主要爭議點包括：原審法官的裁決基礎是否得到充分證據支持，以及案中證據是否足以達到法律界定危險駕駛的門檻。申請人一方認為沒有證據顯示他必然能看見死者或及時反應，且死者並非在行人過路處橫過馬路。答辯方則強調申請人違規右轉且未有小心觀察路面情況。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭維持原審法官的裁決。法庭認為，儘管控方專家證人的計算可能存在誤差，但其報告中的照片清楚顯示，申請人在右轉時前方和右邊視線毫無阻擋。在此情況下，申請人完全沒有看見死者，唯一不可抗拒的推論是其沒有小心清楚觀察路面情況。法庭強調，一名合格和謹慎的駕駛者應時刻保持警惕，特別是在交通燈管制的行人過路線，並預期有行人可能不依規則橫過馬路。申請人違規右轉且未有小心觀察，其駕駛方式顯然遠遜於合格駕駛者應達到的水平，且對合格駕駛者而言顯然是危險的。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了《道路交通條例》(香港法例第374章) 第36(4)條，該條文界定了危險駕駛的構成要素。此外，法庭亦參考了R v Conteh [2004] RTR 1, 5；香港特別行政區 訴 林志發 [2012] 1 HKLRD 961 第28至30段；及香港特別行政區 訴 林灝言（未經彙編）CACC 10/2010 第20及21段，以確認危險駕駛的舉證門檻是高的。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭拒絕了申請人就危險駕駛引致他人死亡罪的定罪上訴許可申請。原審法官判處的15個月監禁、停牌18個月及參與駕駛改進課程的判刑維持不變。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了危險駕駛罪的舉證門檻雖然高，但駕駛者在違規駕駛時，若未能小心觀察路面情況，導致嚴重後果，仍可能被裁定危險駕駛。即使死者可能違規橫過馬路，亦不影響駕駛者須時刻保持警惕的責任。法庭強調駕駛者應預期行人可能不依規則橫過馬路，並採取適當的駕駛方式和速度以確保安全。 --- ### 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 Cheung JA, Hon Chu JA, Hon Poon J - Date of Judgment: 22 January 2014 ### Factual Background The applicant, driving a 5.5-tonne lorry, made a right turn from the leftmost lane of Pei Ho Street into Hai Tan Street, in contravention of traffic signs. During the turn, the lorry's right front wing mirror struck an 86-year-old man, and its right rear wheel ran over his right foot, causing severe head injuries and a fractured hip, leading to his death later that day. The applicant claimed he heard a collision sound and stopped, but did not see where the deceased came from. Police investigation found minor damage to the lorry's front right side and the wing mirror folded inwards, with no brake marks on the road. A prosecution expert testified that the accident could have been avoided if the applicant had detected the deceased 1.5 seconds earlier and braked urgently. The trial judge convicted the applicant of causing death by dangerous driving. ### Key Legal Issues The applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction for causing death by dangerous driving. The main issues were whether the trial judge's decision was supported by sufficient evidence and if the evidence met the legal threshold for dangerous driving. The applicant argued there was no evidence he could have seen the deceased or reacted in time, and that the deceased was not crossing at a pedestrian crossing. The respondent contended the applicant made an illegal turn and failed to observe road conditions carefully. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision. The court found that despite potential inaccuracies in the prosecution expert's calculations, the photographs in the expert's report clearly showed the applicant had an unobstructed view ahead and to his right during the turn. Given the applicant completely failed to see the deceased under these circumstances, the only irresistible inference was that he did not carefully observe the road. The court emphasized that a competent and careful driver should always be vigilant, especially at signal-controlled pedestrian crossings, and anticipate pedestrians potentially crossing irregularly. The applicant's illegal turn combined with his failure to observe fell far below the standard expected of a competent driver and was clearly dangerous. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited Section 36(4) of the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap. 374), which defines dangerous driving. The court also referred to R v Conteh [2004] RTR 1, 5; HKSAR v Lam Chi Fat [2012] 1 HKLRD 961, paras 28-30; and HKSAR v Lam Ho Yin (unrep.) CACC 10/2010, paras 20 and 21, to affirm the high evidential threshold for dangerous driving. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal against his conviction for causing death by dangerous driving. The original sentence of 15 months' imprisonment, 18 months' disqualification, and participation in a driving improvement course remained in effect. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirms that while the evidential threshold for dangerous driving is high, a driver who makes an illegal maneuver and fails to observe road conditions carefully, leading to serious consequences, may still be convicted of dangerous driving. Even if the deceased might have crossed the road irregularly, it does not absolve the driver of their responsibility to remain vigilant. The court emphasized that drivers should anticipate pedestrians potentially crossing irregularly and adopt appropriate driving methods and speed to ensure safety. --- ### 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.