The Court found a defendant not guilty of careless driving at trial and not guilty of failing to stop or failing to report after an accident on appeal.

The Appellant initially faced three summonses, namely, careless driving, failing to stop after an accident, and failing to report after an accident. The three summonses originate out of an alleged accident where the Appellant’s private vehicle was said to have “hit a dog”. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to all charges and stood trial before Deputy Magistrate Shirley Hung. The prosecution relies primarily on a car-camera from a minibus behind the Appellant’s private vehicle, which showed a dog coming out of the bottom of the Appellant’s vehicle.

After trial, the Appellant was acquitted of careless driving by the Magistrate. The Magistrate agreed with the Appellant’s submissions that there was no evidence how the dog came into existence and whether any collision in fact occurred. Costs for the careless driving summons was also awarded in favour of the Appellant. However, the Magistrate convicted the Defendant of the “failing to stop” and “failing to report” summonses. The Magistrate was of the view that the dog was crippling and, therefore, injured. The Appellant appealed.

Hon S.T. Poon J allowed the appeal against conviction of both summonses. The Court agreed that the Magistrate erred in finding and the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients common to both summonses, namely (1) injury had been suffered by the relevant animal and (2) the accident caused the injury. In the present case, there was no evidence howsoever about the physical condition of the dog (which was a stray dog) both before and after the alleged accident. In particular, there was also no evidence whether the dog was crippling before it came under the Appellant’s vehicle – no evidence could be shown whether there was a collision between the vehicle with the dog or whether the dog went (on its own volition) under the vehicle. Both convictions were therefore quashed with costs of the appeal in favour of the Appellant. The Court agreed that this was similar to the Court of Final Appeal’s judgment in 𝙃𝙆𝙎𝘼𝙍 𝙫 𝘾𝙝𝙖𝙣 𝘾𝙝𝙞 𝙆𝙚𝙪𝙣𝙜 (2012) 15 HKCFAR 133.

Simon So with Herman Ho represented the Appellant in the appeal before Hon S.T. Poon J. The Full Judgement was published on https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=168219&QS=%2B%7C%28HCMA%2C206%2F2024%29&TP=JU&currpage=T . Simon So with Herman Ho were also trial counsel before Deputy Magistrate Shirley Hung.