電光火石間的駕駛行為是否構成危險駕駛？撤銷定罪

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 林炳光 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：楊振權副庭長、潘兆初法官、杜麗冰法官 - 判決日期：2016年1月28日 ### 案情摘要 上訴人林炳光駕駛客貨車沿啟田道南行線落斜行駛，時速約45-50公里。一名81歲的女士（死者）突然從北行線停下的兩部的士之間走出，橫過馬路。上訴人駕駛的客貨車右邊車頭撞倒死者，導致其死亡。事發路段兩旁行人路有欄杆分隔，最近的斑馬線約100米外。行車記錄儀顯示，從死者走出馬路到被撞倒僅2至3秒，當時她與客貨車距離約16呎。上訴人聲稱曾響號及踩煞車掣，但未能避免撞擊。原審法官裁定上訴人危險駕駛引致他人死亡罪成。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於上訴人的駕駛行為是否構成危險駕駛引致他人死亡罪，抑或僅屬不小心駕駛罪。上訴方大律師李祖詒認為，上訴人在電光火石間的判斷錯誤，選擇響號而非大力煞車，不應構成危險駕駛，因其駕駛方式並非遠遜於合格而謹慎的駕駛者。控方則援引案例，認為被告未能預早看見死者是因為沒有注意路面情況。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭認為，原審法官裁定上訴人危險駕駛罪成，主要是基於上訴人看見死者後沒有立即緊急煞車，而只選擇響號。然而，上訴法庭對上訴人是故意決定不緊急煞車的結論有所保留。考慮到從上訴人看見死者到撞擊發生僅2至3秒，法庭質疑上訴人是否有足夠時間思考並作出有意識的決定。法庭指出，在電光火石間，即使是合格而謹慎的駕駛者也未必能採取最佳方法避免意外。因此，未能採取最佳方法不一定構成危險駕駛。法庭認為原審法官的裁決過於嚴苛，給予上訴人疑點的得益，將危險駕駛罪改判為不小心駕駛罪。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了香港特別行政區 訴 林志發 [2012] 1 HKLRD 961 案，該案闡明了支持危險駕駛罪的舉證要求，即控方須證明被告的駕駛行為遠遜於合格而謹慎駕駛者應達到的水平，且該駕駛方式對合格而謹慎的駕駛者而言顯然是危險的。本案亦提及香港特別行政區 訴 郭奕城 (CACC381/2011) 案，但指出兩案情況不同。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴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，改判不小心駕駛罪罪名成立。上訴人被改判入獄三個月，取消駕駛資格三年，並須自費參加駕駛改進課程才能恢復駕駛。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了在判斷危險駕駛罪時，需充分考慮事發時的緊急情況和駕駛者反應時間的限制。法庭指出，在電光火石之間未能採取最佳方法避免意外，不一定構成危險駕駛，尤其是在駕駛者可能因突發情況而恐慌或反應不及時。這對處理涉及突發事件的交通意外案件具有指導意義，避免對駕駛者施加過於嚴苛的標準。 --- ### 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 Lam Ping Kwong - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Yeung VP, Hon Poon J.A., Hon Du P.J. - Date of Judgment: 28 January 2016 ### Factual Background The appellant, Lam Ping Kwong, was driving a van downhill on the southbound lane of Kai Tin Road at approximately 45-50 km/h. An 81-year-old woman (the deceased) suddenly emerged from between two stationary taxis on the northbound lane and crossed the road. The front right side of the appellant's van struck the deceased, causing her death. The section of the road had railings separating the pedestrian walkways, and the nearest zebra crossing was about 100 meters away. The dashcam footage showed that only 2 to 3 seconds elapsed from when the deceased stepped onto the road until she was hit, with an initial distance of about 16 feet between her and the van. The appellant claimed he honked and braked but could not avoid the collision. The trial judge convicted the appellant of causing death by dangerous driving. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the appellant's driving constituted dangerous driving causing death or merely careless driving. Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Lee Cho Yiu, argued that the appellant's split-second error in judgment, choosing to honk rather than brake hard, should not amount to dangerous driving, as his driving was not far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver. The prosecution, citing a previous case, contended that the defendant's failure to anticipate the deceased was due to a lack of attention to road conditions. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's conviction for dangerous driving was primarily based on the appellant's failure to brake immediately upon seeing the deceased, choosing instead to honk. However, the Court of Appeal expressed reservations about the conclusion that the appellant deliberately decided not to brake urgently. Considering that only 2 to 3 seconds elapsed from the moment the appellant first saw the deceased until the collision, the court questioned whether the appellant had sufficient time to think and make a conscious decision. The court noted that in a split-second situation, even a competent and careful driver might not be able to take the optimal action to avoid an accident. Therefore, failing to take the best possible action does not necessarily constitute dangerous driving. The court deemed the trial judge's decision overly harsh and gave the appellant the benefit of the doubt, substituting the conviction of dangerous driving with careless driving. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited HKSAR v Lam Chi Fat [2012] 1 HKLRD 961, which clarified the evidential requirements for dangerous driving, stating that the prosecution must prove the defendant's driving fell far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver, and that such driving would be obvious to a competent and careful driver as dangerous. HKSAR v Kwok Yik Shing (CACC381/2011) was also mentioned, but the court distinguished its facts from the present case. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashing the conviction for causing death by dangerous driving and substituting it with a conviction for careless driving. The appellant was re-sentenced to three months' imprisonment, disqualified from driving for three years, and ordered to attend a driving improvement course at his own expense before his license could be restored. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights the importance of considering the emergency nature of an incident and the limited reaction time of a driver when assessing dangerous driving. The court emphasized that failing to take the optimal action in a split-second situation does not automatically constitute dangerous driving, especially when a driver might panic or react inadequately due to the suddenness of the event. This provides guidance for handling traffic accident cases involving sudden occurrences, preventing overly stringent standards from being applied to drivers. --- ### 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.