HKSAR v Lam Joseph Chok [2025] 3 HKLRD 531, [2025] HKCFI 2247 (Kim J. McCoy, Sebastian Leung)

Kim J. McCoy and Sebastian Leung represented the appellant in HKSAR v Lam Joseph Chok [2025] 3 HKLRD 531, [2025] HKCFI 2247.

D was convicted of careless driving following a trial before the Magistrate. The incident occurred in a carpark, where D’s vehicle collided with a pillar at its right front bumper while negotiating a left turn on a downslope. D admitted the collision but contended that the accident was caused by skidding due to wet road conditions. The Magistrate rejected this explanation and found that absent any sensible explanation, an irresistible inference of carelessness could be drawn. The Magistrate alternatively examined the CCTV footages and concluded that there was no skidding. He found that D should have controlled his speed properly by applying more brakes, and D misjudged the timing to turn which caused the collision. D appealed against the conviction.

Held, allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction and sentence, that:

• (1) The Magistrate wrongly applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which had no place in criminal law, to arrive at his conclusion. In criminal proceedings, the burden remained on the prosecution to prove the defendant’s driving manner fell below the standard of a reasonable driver. The mere fact of an accident did not call for an explanation from the defendant and was not enough to prove careless driving without evidence on the defendant’s driving manner. (See paras.8-11, 17.)
• (2) The Magistrate misinterpreted and misapplied the cases of HKSAR v Wong Kin Wah and HKSAR v Lee Kin Yip. In both cases, it was the evidence of observed irregular driving behaviour (such as zigzagging) that called for explanation from the defendant as to his or her driving manner, and without which, an inference of careless driving could be drawn. That inference was not merely drawn from the occurrence of an accident (HKSAR v Wong Kin Wah (HCMA 490/2005, [2005] HKEC 1045) and HKSAR v Lee Kin Yip (HCMA 215/2009, [2009] CHKEC 1635) applied). (See paras.12-17.)
• (3) Regarding the Magistrate’s alternative finding based on CCTV footages, while the Magistrate concluded that D failed to control his speed and misjudged the timing of the turn, he did not elaborate on why he took such views. The Court found it difficult to determine from the footages alone whether the vehicle was travelling at an inappropriate speed, whether skidding occurred, or the cause of the collision. The fact that another vehicle passed through the same area uneventfully was irrelevant. There was insufficient evidence on D’s driving manner to prove carelessness beyond reasonable doubt. (See paras.19-25.)

[The above is excerpted from the headnote to the report in HKLRD.]