DCCC350/2024

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 黃嘉豪 - 法院：區域法院 (District Court) - 法官：陳永豪 (Acting Judge) - 判決日期：2025年2月17日 ### 案情摘要 被告人駕駛中型貨車於2023年7月15日駛經黃竹坑道支路時，撞倒一名正橫過馬路的行人（死者），導致死者死亡。事發時另一名行人 (PW2) 已成功過路。控方指控被告人危險駕駛，而辯方則主張被告人的駕駛態度僅屬不小心駕駛。 ### 核心法律爭議 核心 legal issue 在於被告人的駕駛方式是否達到《道路交通條例》第36條定義的「危險駕駛」標準，即是否「遠遜於一個合格而謹慎的駕駛人會被期望達到的水平」。控方認為被告人無視慢駛標記及未及早留意死者；辯方則強調死者突然踏出馬路且碰撞避無可避。 ### 判決理由 法官分析認為，雖然被告人未超速且有減速，但其專注力被先行過路的 PW2 分散，導致其在死者踏出馬路前未能採取足夠反應。然而，考慮到死者踏出馬路的「突然性」以及被告人並非故意無視，其行為未達至「危險」程度。但由於被告人在進入輔助線位置時未進一步收慢至合格水平，仍構成 breach of duty，符合「不小心駕駛」的定義。 ### 引用案例與條文 引用 HKSAR v Guan Yu Yi (HCMA 318/2016) 等多宗案例探討「一時缺乏專注」與「危險駕駛」之區分；引用 HKSAR v Lam Ying Yu [2014] 2 HKLRD 895 關於路標提示之分析；以及 HKSAR v Wong Yuk Lun (HCMA 616/1997) 確立不能僅因發生意外而推論駕駛者必然疏忽的原則。 ### 裁決與命令 被告人被裁定「危險駕駛引致他人死亡」罪名不成立，但根據《道路交通條例》第36(10)條，被改判為「不小心駕駛」罪名成立並被定罪。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了「突然性」與「分神」在區分危險駕駛與不小心駕駛中的關鍵作用。法官提醒不能僅以「避無可避」作為辯護標語，而應分析導致該結果的駕駛行為是否符合合格謹慎駕駛者的標準。 --- ### 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 Wong Ka Ho - Court: District Court - Judge: Chan Wing Ho (Acting Judge) - Date of Judgment: 17 February 2025 ### Factual Background The defendant, driving a medium goods vehicle, struck and killed a pedestrian crossing the road at a junction in Wong Chuk Hang Road on 15 July 2023. Another pedestrian (PW2) had crossed safely just before the impact. The prosecution charged the defendant with causing death by dangerous driving, while the defense argued the conduct amounted only to careless driving. ### Key Legal Issues The central legal issue was whether the defendant's driving fell far below the standard of a competent and careful driver, meeting the statutory definition of "dangerous driving" under Section 36 of the Road Traffic Ordinance. The prosecution alleged failure to heed road markings and poor lookout, while the defense argued the pedestrian's sudden emergence made the collision unavoidable. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge found that while the defendant was not speeding and had decelerated, his attention was diverted by PW2, leading to a delayed reaction to the deceased. However, the "suddenness" of the deceased's movement meant the conduct did not reach the threshold of "dangerous." Nevertheless, the defendant failed to slow down sufficiently for a pedestrian crossing area, which constitutes careless driving. ### Key Precedents & Statutes Cited HKSAR v Guan Yu Yi (HCMA 318/2016) and others to distinguish momentary lack of concentration from dangerous driving. Referenced HKSAR v Lam Ying Yu [2014] 2 HKLRD 895 regarding signage and HKSAR v Wong Yuk Lun (HCMA 616/1997) regarding the principle that an accident does not automatically prove negligence. ### Decision & Orders The charge of causing death by dangerous driving was dismissed. The defendant was instead convicted of the lesser offense of "careless driving" pursuant to Section 36(10) of the Road Traffic Ordinance. ### Key Takeaways The judgment highlights that "suddenness" and "distraction" can downgrade a charge from dangerous to careless driving. It cautions against using "unavoidable" as a mere slogan, stressing that the court must analyze the specific driving behavior against the standard of a competent driver. --- ### 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.