危險駕駛引致他人受傷的量刑？減刑

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 關韻琪 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：楊振權副庭長、彭偉昌法官、潘敏琦法官 - 判決日期：2020年5月14日 ### 案情摘要 上訴人關韻琪於2017年11月19日駕駛電單車，在大角嘴道一條單線南行車道的交通燈控制行人過路處，因未能及時察覺紅燈而撞到正在過馬路的郭女士及其家人。郭女士因此右足踝脫臼，需接受手術及物理治療，並留醫7天。蔡先生受輕傷，上訴人頸背疼痛。原審法官裁定上訴人危險駕駛引致他人身體受嚴重傷害罪名成立，判處監禁18個月及停牌2年。上訴人就判刑提出上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 上訴人爭議原審法官判處的18個月監禁刑期明顯過重，認為案件不具加重罪責因素，且受害人傷勢不嚴重並已康復。上訴方主張其罪責屬較輕一類，並強調其良好背景及事件對其造成的打擊。答辯方則認為上訴人衝紅燈撞傷行人屬罪責較高類別，並引用案例指被告人良好背景在判刑時比重甚微，建議判刑不應少於12個月監禁。 ### 判決理由 法庭重申危險駕駛罪行的判刑須具阻嚇性，但同時指出罪行所導致的後果，特別是傷亡情況，在駕駛罪行中是重要的考慮因素。法庭認為原審法官在採納21個月量刑基準時，未充分考慮上訴人危險駕駛行為的惡劣程度較輕，以及事件未導致有人死亡或嚴重受傷這兩個重要因素。法庭強調上訴人並非故意衝紅燈，而是因注意力不集中，且受害人傷勢較輕並已康復。考慮到上訴人良好品格及事件對其造成的困擾，法庭給予額外刑期扣減。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗案例以確立危險駕駛罪行的判刑原則及量刑指引： - Secretary for Justice v Po on Wing Kay [2007] 1 HKLRD 660：確立危險駕駛案件須處以具阻嚇性判刑。 - R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343：指出品格良好者犯嚴重交通罪行仍須處以適當懲罰。 - HKSAR v Leung Chiu Yu [2012] 2 HKLRD 313：強調駕駛罪行中意外後果是判刑重要因素。 - Secretary for Justice v Wade, Ian Francis [2016] 3 HKC 274：重申危險駕駛導致死亡或嚴重受傷的判刑應顯著不同。 - R v Cooksley & others [2003] 2 Cr App R 18 275：確立危險駕駛引致死亡的量刑基準為12至18個月監禁。 - R v Brown [2002] 1 Cr App R (S) 504：認同在有力減刑理由下可判處較低刑期。 ### 裁決與命令 高等法院上訴法庭裁定上訴人針對判刑的上訴得直，撤銷原審法官判處的18個月監禁刑期，改判監禁6個月。法庭維持原判的停牌令及上訴人要再獲發回駕駛執照前須履行的條件。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了在危險駕駛引致他人身體受嚴重傷害的案件中，法庭在量刑時必須平衡阻嚇性與個案的具體情節。特別是，被告人危險駕駛行為的惡劣程度、是否故意、以及受害人傷勢的嚴重性及其康復情況，均是重要的考慮因素。即使被告人有良好背景，若罪行嚴重仍需判處具阻嚇性的刑罰，但若情節較輕，則可酌情給予較仁慈的判刑。 --- ### 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 Kwan Wan Ki - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Yang J.A., Pang J.A., Poon J. - Date of Judgment: 14 May 2020 ### Factual Background The appellant, Kwan Wan Ki, was driving a motorcycle on November 19, 2017, when she failed to notice a red light at a signal-controlled pedestrian crossing on Tai Kok Tsui Road, colliding with Ms. Kwok and her family who were crossing the road. Ms. Kwok suffered a dislocated right ankle, requiring surgery and physiotherapy, and was hospitalized for 7 days. Mr. Choi sustained minor injuries, and the appellant experienced neck and back pain. The trial judge convicted the appellant of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm, sentencing her to 18 months' imprisonment and a 2-year disqualification. The appellant appealed against the sentence. ### Key Legal Issues The appellant argued that the 18-month imprisonment sentence was manifestly excessive, contending that there were no aggravating factors and the victim's injuries were not severe and had fully recovered. The appellant's counsel asserted that her culpability was at the lower end of the spectrum, emphasizing her good character and the impact of the incident on her. The respondent argued that running a red light and hitting pedestrians constituted a higher degree of culpability, citing precedents that good character carries little weight in sentencing for such offenses, and suggested a sentence of no less than 12 months' imprisonment. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court reiterated that sentences for dangerous driving offenses must be deterrent, but also noted that the consequences of the offense, particularly injuries or fatalities, are crucial considerations in driving offenses. The Court found that the trial judge, in adopting a starting point of 21 months, did not adequately consider the less severe nature of the appellant's dangerous driving and the significant factors that no one died or suffered severe injuries. The Court emphasized that the appellant did not intentionally run the red light but rather acted due to inattention, and the victim's injuries were relatively minor and she had fully recovered. Considering the appellant's good character and the distress caused by the incident, the Court granted an additional sentence reduction. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited several precedents to establish sentencing principles and guidelines for dangerous driving offenses: - Secretary for Justice v Po on Wing Kay [2007] 1 HKLRD 660: Established that dangerous driving cases require deterrent sentences. - R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343: Indicated that even persons of good character committing serious traffic offenses must receive appropriate punishment. - HKSAR v Leung Chiu Yu [2012] 2 HKLRD 313: Emphasized that the consequences of an accident are a crucial factor in sentencing for driving offenses. - Secretary for Justice v Wade, Ian Francis [2016] 3 HKC 274: Reaffirmed that sentences for dangerous driving causing death or serious injury should be significantly different. - R v Cooksley & others [2003] 2 Cr App R 18 275: Established a sentencing starting point of 12 to 18 months' imprisonment for dangerous driving causing death. - R v Brown [2002] 1 Cr App R (S) 504: Acknowledged that lower sentences might be imposed in cases with strong mitigating factors. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal allowed the appellant's appeal against sentence, quashing the original sentence of 18 months' imprisonment and substituting it with a sentence of 6 months' imprisonment. The Court upheld the original disqualification order and the conditions for the appellant to regain her driving license. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights that in cases of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm, courts must balance deterrence with the specific circumstances of the case. Key factors include the severity of the dangerous driving, whether it was intentional, and the seriousness of the victim's injuries and their recovery. While good character does not negate the need for a deterrent sentence in serious cases, a more lenient approach may be taken if the circumstances are less severe. --- ### 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.