危險駕駛，前車突切線可預見？？撤銷定罪

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v Chin Chi Kwong - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Barnes J - 判決日期：2008年9月17日 ### 案情摘要 上訴人駕駛私家車沿青山公路行駛，當時路面濕滑。在其前方，第一控方證人 (PW1) 駕駛的私家車與另一輛突然切線的私家車相撞。隨後，上訴人的車輛輕微撞到PW1的車輛。裁判官裁定上訴人「跟車太貼」及駕駛方式未達謹慎司機標準，裁定其不小心駕駛罪名成立。上訴人就定罪提出上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議為裁判官是否錯誤認定上訴人「跟車太貼」或駕駛方式未達謹慎標準。上訴方認為，裁判官未充分考慮當時下雨、路面濕滑、上訴人車輛打滑以及前方車輛突然危險切線等情況。控方則認為上訴人未能及時煞車，顯示其駕駛方式不當。 ### 判決理由 法官採納了 Lord Cooper 在 Brown & Lynn v. Western SMT Co. Ltd 案中關於跟車距離的原則，即跟車距離應視乎所有情況而定，司機應預期合理可預見的交通緊急情況。法官認為，本案中前方車輛以極度危險方式切線，並跨越分叉線，此等行為並非一般司機可合理預見。因此，上訴人未能及時反應避免輕微碰撞，並不代表其駕駛方式未達謹慎、小心及專注司機的標準。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了 Brown & Lynn v. Western SMT Co. Ltd 1945 S.C. 31 案中 Lord Cooper 關於跟車司機謹慎責任的原則，以及 Scott v. Warren [1974] R.T.R. 104 案中 Lord Widgery CJ 對此原則的採納。這些案例確立了判斷跟車距離和司機反應是否合理的標準，需考慮所有相關情況及合理預期。此外，亦引用了 HKSAR v. Tong Cun Lin (1999) 2 HKCFAR 531 及 HKSAR v. Wong Yiu Wah & Ors [2002] 1 HKLRD 547 處理訟費事宜。 ### 裁決與命令 法官裁定上訴得直，撤銷定罪並取消罰款。上訴人獲判上訴訟費及裁判法院訟費，如未能達成協議，將由高等法院司法常務官評定。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調在判斷不小心駕駛時，需全面考慮所有客觀環境，包括突發且不可合理預見的危險情況。即使發生碰撞，亦不必然意味著後車司機不小心駕駛。裁判官在處理事實認定時，若未能充分考慮關鍵因素，可能導致定罪不穩妥。此外，本案重申了《道路使用者守則》並非法律，其內容僅供參考，不遵守守則本身不構成罪行。 --- ### 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 Chin Chi Kwong - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Barnes J - Date of Judgment: 17 September 2008 ### Factual Background The appellant was driving a private car on Castle Peak Road when the road was wet and slippery. Ahead of him, the private car driven by the first prosecution witness (PW1) collided with another car that had suddenly cut into its lane. Subsequently, the appellant's vehicle slightly hit PW1's car. The Magistrate convicted the appellant of careless driving, finding that he was 'following too closely' and his driving fell below the standard of a careful driver. The appellant appealed against the conviction. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the Magistrate erred in finding the appellant was 'following too closely' or driving carelessly. The appellant argued that the Magistrate failed to adequately consider the rainy conditions, slippery road, his car skidding, and the sudden, dangerous lane-cutting by the car in front. The prosecution contended that the appellant's inability to brake in time indicated improper driving. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge adopted Lord Cooper's principle from Brown & Lynn v. Western SMT Co. Ltd, stating that the appropriate following distance depends on all circumstances, and a driver should anticipate reasonably foreseeable traffic exigencies. The judge found that the car in front had cut lanes in an extremely dangerous manner, crossing a 'fork' and dividing line, which was not reasonably anticipatable by other drivers. Therefore, the appellant's failure to react in time to avoid a minor collision did not mean his driving fell below the standard of a careful, prudent, and attentive driver. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited Lord Cooper's principles on the duty of a following driver from Brown & Lynn v. Western SMT Co. Ltd 1945 S.C. 31, and its adoption by Lord Widgery CJ in Scott v. Warren [1974] R.T.R. 104. These cases establish that the reasonableness of following distance and driver reaction must be assessed based on all circumstances and reasonable anticipation. HKSAR v. Tong Cun Lin (1999) 2 HKCFAR 531 and HKSAR v. Wong Yiu Wah & Ors [2002] 1 HKLRD 547 were cited regarding costs. ### Decision & Orders The judge allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and set aside the fine. The appellant was awarded costs for the appeal and in the magistrates' court, to be taxed by the Registrar of the High Court if not agreed. ### Key Takeaways This judgment emphasizes that in assessing careless driving, all objective circumstances, including sudden and unforeseeable dangerous situations, must be considered. A collision does not automatically imply careless driving by the following driver. A conviction may be unsafe if the Magistrate fails to adequately consider crucial factors. The case also reiterates that the Road Users' Code is not legislation, and non-compliance itself is not an offence. --- ### 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.