危險駕駛及損壞財產定罪上訴？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v Jim Chong Shing - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Cheung JA, Beeson J and Lugar-Mawson J - 判決日期：2003年10月3日 ### 案情摘要 申請人Jim Chong Shing於2002年9月21日凌晨，在屯門公路的反非法賽車行動中，駕駛一輛白色富士汽車衝過警方路障，撞毀兩輛警車，並以高速逆線行駛，其後被警員追截。警員在追截過程中認出申請人，並在事後辨認程序中確認其身份。申請人被控危險駕駛及罔顧他人生命而損壞財產兩項罪名，經審訊後被定罪，判處總刑期3年半監禁。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案上訴主要圍繞三方面：首先，審訊中是否存在程序不當，即控方是否獲准提出申請人「品格不佳」的證據，以及法官是否未有就此證據僅限於評估信譽作出指示。其次，法官在評估警員的辨認證據時是否出錯或誤導自己。第三，法官是否錯誤地將警方電腦記錄用作支持或佐證警員辨認證據。 ### 判決理由 上訴庭認為，控方提出申請人為公眾人物的證據，旨在證明其較易被辨認，而非揭露其「品格不佳」。法官在處理辨認證據時，已充分考慮所有相關情況，包括辨認時間、距離、光線及警員對申請人的認識，並已就誤認的危險作出自我警誡。對於警方電腦記錄，上訴庭認為法官並未將其視為佐證，而是用於確認警員在事發當天已辨認出申請人並將其姓名記錄在案。因此，定罪並無不穩妥或不滿意之處。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 上訴庭駁回申請人就定罪及判刑提出的上訴許可申請。法院認為定罪並無不穩妥或不滿意之處，判刑原則上並無錯誤，亦無明顯過重。 ### 判決啟示 null --- ### 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 Jim Chong Shing - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Cheung JA, Beeson J and Lugar-Mawson J - Date of Judgment: 3 October 2003 ### Factual Background The applicant, Jim Chong Shing, was involved in an anti-illegal road racing operation on Tuen Mun Road in the early hours of 21 September 2002. He drove a white Subaru through a police roadblock, damaging two police vans, and then drove at high speed against oncoming traffic. A police officer pursued him and identified him during the chase, later confirming his identity in an identification parade. The applicant was convicted of dangerous driving and damaging property being reckless as to whether life would be endangered, receiving a total sentence of 3.5 years' imprisonment. ### Key Legal Issues The appeal against conviction centered on three main areas: firstly, whether there were procedural irregularities at trial, specifically concerning the admission of the applicant's 'bad character' evidence and the judge's directions on its use. Secondly, whether the judge erred or misdirected himself when considering the police officer's identification evidence. Thirdly, whether the judge wrongly used a police computer record as supportive or corroborative evidence of the identification. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found that the prosecution's evidence regarding the applicant's public profile was to establish his recognisability, not to reveal 'bad character'. The judge had properly considered all circumstances of the identification, including duration, distance, lighting, and the officer's prior knowledge of the applicant, and had self-warned about the danger of mistaken identity. Regarding the police computer record, the Court of Appeal held that the judge did not treat it as corroborative evidence, but rather as confirmation that the officer had identified the applicant and recorded his name on the day of the incident. Thus, the convictions were neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence. The court found the convictions to be safe and satisfactory, and the sentences to be neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. ### Key Takeaways null --- ### 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.