短暫分心是否構成危險駕駛？撤銷定罪

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 李家樑 - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：郭啟安暫委法官 - 判決日期：2024年3月28日 ### 案情摘要 上訴人李家樑被控危險駕駛引致他人死亡罪。案發時，上訴人駕駛貨車沿佛光街東行，右轉入馬頭圍道。死者林麗愛當時正由民裕街橫過馬頭圍道，未有使用行人過路處，且行人交通燈顯示「紅色人像」信號。貨車車頭在路口與死者右邊身相撞，導致死者死亡。原審裁判官裁定上訴人罪名成立，判處監禁7個月15天，吊銷駕駛執照5年。上訴人不服定罪提出上訴，並承認不小心駕駛。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心法律爭議在於上訴人的駕駛方式是否構成《道路交通條例》下的「危險駕駛引致他人死亡」罪，抑或僅屬「不小心駕駛」。上訴方認為，上訴人當時車速偏低，並有觀察路面，其未能及時調整姿勢以克服A柱視線阻擋，僅屬一時不專注，不構成危險駕駛。答辯方則認為，合格而謹慎的司機應移動身體克服盲點，上訴人未有如此做已構成危險駕駛。 ### 判決理由 法官審視了控方專家報告及多宗案例，特別是涉及駕駛者轉彎時撞倒行人的案例。法官認為，雖然控方專家指出上訴人若調整姿勢可更早發現死者，但上訴人當時車速偏低，且有觀察右側行人，其在短暫時間（3.7秒）內未能注意到違規橫過馬路的死者，應被視為一時缺乏專注，屬於不小心駕駛，而非危險駕駛。法官強調，判斷是否危險駕駛應基於駕駛方式而非事故後果，並引用案例指出「一時缺乏專注」不構成危險駕駛。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗案例，包括《香港特別行政區 訴 林志發》[2012] 1 HKLRD 961，確立了判斷危險駕駛的標準應基於駕駛方式而非事故後果。此外，亦引用了《R v Conteh》[2004] R.T.R. 1、《香港特別行政區 訴 吳俊文》HCMA 334/201、《香港特別行政區 訴 范少棠》[2014] 4 HKLRD 808、《香港特別行政區 訴 李振華》HCMA 709/2013，這些案例均支持「短暫時間注意不到死者不能便說上訴人的駕駛態度屬於危險」的原則。 ### 裁決與命令 高等法院原訟法庭裁定上訴人上訴得直，撤銷原審「危險駕駛引致他人死亡」罪的定罪及判刑。由於上訴人已承認較輕微的「不小心駕駛」罪，法庭改判上訴人「不小心駕駛」罪罪名成立，判處監禁3個月，並吊銷駕駛執照6個月。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了危險駕駛罪的門檻較高，即使事故造成嚴重後果，法庭仍需嚴格審視駕駛行為是否達到「遠遜於一個合格而謹慎的駕駛者會被期望達到的水平」且「危險顯而易見」的標準。短暫的注意力不集中，尤其是在駕駛者已採取一定謹慎措施（如減速、觀察）的情況下，更傾向於被認定為不小心駕駛而非危險駕駛。這對未來處理類似交通意外案件具有指導意義。 --- ### 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 Lee Ka Leung - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Recorder Kwok Kai On - Date of Judgment: 28 March 2024 ### Factual Background The appellant, Lee Ka Leung, was charged with causing death by dangerous driving. The incident occurred when the appellant was driving a goods vehicle eastward on Fat Kwong Street, turning right into Ma Tau Wai Road. The deceased, Lam Lai Oi, was crossing Ma Tau Wai Road from Man Yue Street, not using a pedestrian crossing, and against a red pedestrian signal. The front of the goods vehicle collided with the right side of the deceased at the intersection, resulting in her death. The original magistrate convicted the appellant, sentencing him to 7 months and 15 days imprisonment and disqualifying him from driving for 5 years. The appellant appealed against the conviction, admitting to careless driving. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question in dispute was whether the appellant's driving manner constituted "causing death by dangerous driving" under the Road Traffic Ordinance, or merely "careless driving." The appellant argued that his speed was low, he was observing the road, and his failure to adjust his posture to overcome the A-pillar obstruction was a momentary lapse of attention, not dangerous driving. The respondent contended that a competent and careful driver should move their body to compensate for blind spots, and the appellant's failure to do so constituted dangerous driving. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge reviewed the prosecution's expert report and several precedents, particularly cases involving drivers colliding with pedestrians while turning. The judge found that although the prosecution's expert suggested the appellant could have detected the deceased earlier by adjusting his posture, the appellant was driving at a low speed and observing pedestrians on the right. His failure to notice the deceased, who was crossing illegally, for a brief period (3.7 seconds) was considered a momentary lack of attention, amounting to careless driving rather than dangerous driving. The judge emphasized that the determination of dangerous driving should be based on the manner of driving, not the consequences of the accident, citing precedents that a "momentary lack of attention" does not constitute dangerous driving. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents, including HKSAR v Lam Chi Fat [2012] 1 HKLRD 961, which established that the standard for dangerous driving should be based on the manner of driving, not the consequences of the accident. It also referred to R v Conteh [2004] R.T.R. 1, HKSAR v Ng Chun Man HCMA 334/201, HKSAR v Fan Siu Tong [2014] 4 HKLRD 808, and HKSAR v Li Chun Wah HCMA 709/2013. These cases collectively support the principle that a brief failure to notice a pedestrian does not necessarily mean the appellant's driving attitude was dangerous. ### Decision & Orders The Court of First Instance allowed the appellant's appeal, quashing the original conviction and sentence for causing death by dangerous driving. As the appellant had admitted to the lesser charge of careless driving, the court substituted a conviction for careless driving, sentencing him to 3 months imprisonment and disqualifying him from driving for 6 months. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the high threshold for dangerous driving. Even if an accident has severe consequences, the court must strictly assess whether the driving behavior falls "far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver" and whether the danger was "obvious." A momentary lapse of attention, especially when the driver has taken some precautionary measures (e.g., slowing down, observing), is more likely to be classified as careless driving than dangerous driving. This has significant implications for similar traffic accident cases in the future. --- ### 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.