6131 3928
Criminal Case
We assist clients by analyzing the causes of incidents, assessing the likelihood of success, and understanding potential legal liabilities. Our primary goal is to evaluate the case quickly, guiding the next steps to avoid missing critical opportunities for resolution.
Delays in action can result in significant losses for clients, such as failing to report third-party insurance claims in time, missing the chance to negotiate settlements, not documenting injuries promptly, or misjudging the likelihood of success in court.
Upon instruction, our legal team handles tasks including statement recording, bail applications, court appearances, defense strategies, and pleas of mitigation, ensuring clients’ legal rights are protected and bail is secured promptly.
Free Legal Assistance
Traffic Offenses:
• Careless Driving
• Dangerous Driving
• Driving Under the Influence (DUI)
• Driving Without a License
• Driving During a License Suspension
• Driving Without Third-Party
• Insurance
Additional Services Include:
• Drug Offenses
• Fraud and Integrity Offenses
• Violent Crimes
Latest Success Case Sharing
Time: Afternoon
Location: Opposite Chang Tai Industrial Building
Involved Vehicle: Light Goods Vehicle
Injuries: One pedestrian severely injured
Case Brief：
Mr. Lee is a light goods vehicle driver. On the day of the accident, he was delivering goods and followed the vehicle in front as it turned into the Chang Tai Industrial Building. At that moment, an elderly person was crossing the road, and unfortunately, Mr. Lee collided with the elderly person, resulting in a severe leg fracture.
The police investigated Mr. Lee for dangerous driving causing serious injury. Mr. Lee was accompanied by a solicitor from our firm during his statement and initially did not submit any dashcam footage, remaining silent under the caution statement (pol. 857).
Due to the severity of the injuries, the police confirmed the prosecution of Mr. Lee for dangerous driving causing serious injury. Our firm initially attempted to negotiate with the prosecution for a lesser charge of careless driving and expressed Mr. Lee’s willingness to accept this charge through counsel. However, the prosecution did not accept this proposal.
The prosecution insisted on proceeding with the charge of dangerous driving causing serious injury. Generally, even with a guilty plea that might reduce the sentence by one-third, Mr. Lee faced a high likelihood of being sentenced to 6 to 12 months in prison, along with a driving ban of no less than six months.
After conducting a security investigation and analysing relevant footage, our firm concluded that Mr. Lee was not speeding while turning and was following the same manoeuvre as the vehicle in front. Unfortunately, the elderly person stepped out from a non-crosswalk area at that time. Crucially, based on angle calculations, it was found that at the moment of the turn, Mr. Lee was directly blinded by the sun, which could have affected his line of sight during the turn.
Mr. Lee reasonably admitted to the court that he was driving carelessly, acknowledging that after colliding with the elderly person, he failed to stop in time, exacerbating the elderly person’s injuries. Overall, with the benefit of doubt in favour of the defendant, the court determined that Mr. Lee’s driving behaviour fell under the category of careless driving and did not meet the legal standard for dangerous driving.
Ultimately, Mr. Lee was convicted of careless driving, fined $3,000, and did not receive a driving ban. Additionally, since Mr. Lee had publicly admitted to careless driving before the trial, the court allowed him to claim part of his legal fees from the Department of Justice to settle the case.
Of course, Mr. Lee still retains liability for the elderly person’s injuries due to his careless driving. In this regard, we assisted Mr. Lee in filing an insurance claim immediately after the accident.
Date: January 18, 2024
Time: Afternoon
Location: Near the Airport Bus Terminal, in front of IFC, Central
Vehicles Involved: Taxi and private car
Injuries: None
Charge: Careless Driving
Incident Overview：
On the day of the incident, the taxi driver was passing in front of the IFC in Central. While making a turn, he slightly crossed the dashed line separating two lanes, due to a poor angle control of the right rear wheel.
A private car behind claimed that this action affected its driving dynamics, leading to a sudden stop. The private car driver reported the incident, supported by video footage, to the authorities via hotline 1823.
Due to the time elapsed since the incident, the taxi driver did not retain any dashcam footage. The taxi owner submitted the driver’s name to the police as required. Consequently, the taxi driver was charged with careless driving based solely on the video evidence, without having the opportunity to give a statement.
After receiving the case, our firm reviewed all documents and evidence provided by the police. Upon multiple examinations of the private car driver’s footage, we concluded that it was unclear whether the taxi driver’s actions constituted careless driving. The video did not show any severe braking behaviour from the private car driver that would indicate an unsafe driving situation.
After analysing the evidence, we argued that the prosecution’s basis for charging the taxi driver—slightly crossing the dashed line without fully crossing it—would set a precedent for a vast number of driving offenses. This was likely to be unacceptable to the court. After hearings, we discovered that the complainant had a history of 400 prior complaints regarding driving behaviour. The court deemed this case to involve extremely minor driving conduct and did not wish to establish a precedent for excessive complaints and prosecutions. As a result, the taxi driver was found not guilty of careless driving.
Moreover, since the taxi driver had not been given the opportunity to provide a statement to the police, the court recognized that there was no admission of guilt or improper legal conduct on his part. Thus, he was awarded legal costs up to a maximum of $30,000.
Charges:
Two counts of Careless Driving (June 4, 2023: around 10:55 AM | New Territories, Kwai Chung, Pearwood Road, near lamp post W4868 (heading towards Shek Yam); around 4:34 PM | Lai Chi Kok Road (westbound) near lamp post AA4259)
and
Three counts of Dangerous Driving (June 4, 2023: around 3:34 PM | Nathan Road (southbound) at the junction with Dundas Street; around 3:43 PM | Junction of Cheung Hong Street and Temple Street; around 3:44 PM | Junction of Cheung Hong Street and Shanghai Street)
Charges:
(1) Careless Driving
(2) Dangerous Driving
(3) Dangerous Driving
(4) Dangerous Driving
(5) Careless Driving
Date/Time:
(1) June 4, 2023, around 10:55 AM
(2) June 4, 2023, around 3:34 PM
(3) June 4, 2023, around 3:43 PM
(4) June 4, 2023, around 3:44 PM
(5) June 4, 2023, around 4:34 PM
Location:
(1) New Territories, Kwai Chung, Pearwood Road, near lamp post W4868 (heading towards Shek Yam)
(2) Nathan Road (southbound) at the junction with Dundas Street
(3) Junction of Cheung Hong Street and Temple Street
(4) Junction of Cheung Hong Street and Shanghai Street
(5) Lai Chi Kok Road (westbound) near lamp post AA4259
Case Details:
(1) On June 4, 2023, around 10:55 AM, a man surnamed Feng was driving private car VG5141. The defendant was driving private car NK2560. Both vehicles were traveling in the left lane of Pearwood Road (heading towards Shek Yam). When they reached the above location, VG5141 slowed to a stop due to traffic conditions ahead, while the defendant was unable to stop in time, and collided the front of NK2560 into the rear of VG5141, resulting in an accident.
(2) On June 4, 2023, around 3:34 PM, the defendant was driving private car NK2560 in the first lane of Nathan Road (southbound), violating a “straight only” traffic sign by making a left turn into Dundas Street (westbound). At that time, the pedestrian crossing on Dundas Street had a green pedestrian light, with pedestrians crossing the road and vehicles sounding their horns as a warning. Nevertheless, the defendant continued to turn left until the front of NK2560 passed the pedestrian crossing area on Dundas Street before stopping. The defendant then reversed the vehicle into Nathan Road (southbound) in the wrong lane, immediately made a U-turn in the third lane, and left the scene.
(3) On June 4, 2023, around 3:43 PM, a man surnamed Li was driving light goods vehicle XC8272 westbound on Cheung Hong Street. As he approached the junction with Temple Street (northbound), the defendant abruptly drove private car NK2560 from the right of XC8272, emerging from Temple Street (northbound) in a wrong direction, causing Mr. Li to brake suddenly to avoid a collision.
(4) After driving in the wrong direction from Temple Street, the defendant crossed three lanes and turned right into the first lane of Cheung Hong Street (westbound), subsequently violating a red traffic signal by turning left into Shanghai Street (southbound) and leaving the scene.
(5) On June 4, 2023, around 4:34 PM, a man surnamed Zhao and the defendant were driving bus VC5030 and private car NK2560 respectively in the left lane of Lai Chi Kok Road (westbound). As they approached lamp post AA4259, VC5030 slowed down and stopped at the left bus stop, but the defendant failed to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle ahead. Unable to stop in time, the front left of NK2560 collided with the rear right of bus VC5030, resulting in damage to both vehicles.
Arrangement:
When the defendant sought our assistance, we recognized the complexity and continuity of the multiple cases and immediately consulted a barrister. After the barrister’s preliminary analysis of the situation, we concluded that a normal driver would not repeatedly drive in the wrong lane and continuously violate traffic rules. Given the barrister’s experience with similar cases, we suspected the defendant might have been experiencing an abnormal physical condition, such as a stroke, while driving. Based on the barrister’s advice, we promptly commissioned a specialist doctor to examine the defendant and prepare a report.
We also recommended that the defendant retain a barrister to request a postponement in court, allowing time to prepare the expert report and giving the specialist sufficient time to prepare. Unlike general doctors, specialist doctors provide a more professional perspective, explaining why the defendant behaved in that manner while driving. Once the report was completed and analyzed, we believed that the defendant’s condition while driving could not be compared to that of a normal driver. We concluded that if the charges were to stand under these circumstances, it would be profoundly unfair to the defendant.
Consequently, we engaged a barrister to negotiate with the Department of Justice based on the expert report. After several postponements and discussions, we successfully secured a resolution for the defendant to handle the multiple cases through a signed good behaviour bond. This bond is neither a conviction nor a punishment; the court requires the individual to guarantee, through self-signature, that they will maintain good behaviour and comply with the law for a period not exceeding three years.
Although the multiple cases took considerable time to resolve, the outcome was a fair and just handling of the defendant’s situation. The appropriate approach and expert pairing were key to achieving this resolution.
HK01 News
“大地任我行｜私家車衝燈逆線反轉西九後撞巴士 73歲翁涉危駕被捕 ”
美孚昨午（4日）發生私家車撞巴士車禍，揭七旬司機「大地任我行」成馬路炸彈。73歲姓黎涉案私家車男司機，昨午在美孚撞向一輛埋站九巴車尾，受傷送院，揭發事前曾在油麻地逆線行駛及衝紅燈，以及在旺角彌敦道逆線行駛。
黎翁在旺角及油麻地多次違反交通規則的情況，遭途人及其他車的車cam拍下，警方今日（5日）表示留意到私家車疑在旺角彌敦道逆線行駛的片段，西九龍總區交通部人員經深入調查後，今午在長沙灣區拘捕一名73歲姓黎男司機，涉嫌「危險駕駛」，他現正被扣留調查。警方調查顯示，涉案私家車昨午4時在旺角彌敦道及登打士街交界懷疑逆線行駛，其後駛至油麻地眾坊街及廟街交界時懷疑逆線行駛及衝紅燈。當該私家車駛至美孚荔枝角道一巴士站時，懷疑失控撞向一輛巴士，黎翁眼受傷，清醒被送往瑪嘉烈醫院治理。
私家車在旺角彌敦道逆線行駛
事發在昨日下午，私家車先後在旺角及油麻地多次違例駕駛，不但衝紅燈外，更在車來車往的彌敦道逆線行駛，途人炮轟：「有冇牌㗎你呀？」更不禁嘆：「無奇不有香港地，呢啲叫做新香港呀！」私家車其後在美孚新邨對開，撞向一輛埋站的巴士車尾，73歲姓黎私家車男司機眼角受傷送院。
私家車在油麻地逆線行駛及衝紅燈
任何人在道路上危險駕駛汽車，即屬犯罪，最高可被判處監禁3年及罰款2.5萬元。如屬首次被定罪，可被停牌至少6個月；再被定罪則可被停牌至少兩年，另外須強制修習駕駛改進課程及記違例駕駛10分。警方嚴厲譴責違例司機不負責的駕駛行為，指出這除了妄顧行人安全構成危險，更往往是引致嚴重交通意外的真正原因，警方必定嚴正執法，絕不姑息。
Source: 大地任我行｜私家車衝燈逆線反轉西九後撞巴士 73歲翁涉危駕被捕 | 香港01
Date: April 21, 2024
Time: 2:15 AM
Location: Ting Tai Road near lamp post DE0051, Tai Po
Involved Vehicles: 2 private cars
Injured Parties: 2 injured persons
Charges: 1) Dangerous driving, 2) Driving, attempting to drive, or being in charge of a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the prescribed limit (Level 3), and 3) Using a defective vehicle
Incident Summary
Prior to the incident, the defendant had dinner at a friend’s house and consumed some red wine. In the early hours, the defendant was notified by family members that his father was in poor health. Due to his father’s ongoing health issues, the defendant became very concerned and, in a moment of urgency, decided to drive despite having been drinking, hoping to reach his father’s home quickly.
At the time of the incident, while turning right from Tai Po Road onto Ting Tai Road, the defendant mistakenly drove into the oncoming lane, resulting in a head-on collision with another private car that was waiting at a green light. The driver and one passenger of the other vehicle sustained injuries. Following the accident, the defendant’s breath test results were 85 mg and 74 mg, categorizing him as Level 3.
After the incident, the client expressed deep regret for his actions and instructed our firm to assist with a mitigation plea.
Upon receiving the case, we analyzed potential mitigating factors together with a barrister, including the client’s lack of prior convictions for careless driving, dangerous driving, or drunk driving, his willingness to plead guilty promptly, and his readiness to compensate the victims.
In reviewing past cases, we noted precedents for community service orders or probation for Level 3 drunk driving and dangerous driving offenses. In our plea to the court, we presented these mitigating factors and case precedents, ultimately resulting in the court imposing a community service order and driving ban, and successfully achieving a satisfactory outcome for our client.
Date: June 19, 2023
Time: Afternoon
Location: Po Lo Road Northbound
Involved Vehicles: Private car and tour bus
Injuries: None
Charge: Careless driving
Incident Overview：
The defendant in this case is a tour bus driver. On the day of the incident, while traveling north on Po Lo Road, the bus’s wheels crossed the double white lines during a turn. The driver of an oncoming private car claimed that they swerved to avoid a collision and crashed into a stone wall. Subsequently, the private car driver reported the bus driver for negligent driving through the “影住駕” platform.
After analysis, we deemed the private car driver’s accusations unreasonable. The road where the incident occurred is narrow and located on a hillside. Although the tour bus was driven close to the mountainside—so much so that the driver could hear branches hitting the vehicle—the wheels still crossed the double white lines. We believe that it is unavoidable for large vehicles to cross lines when navigating narrow bends, which does not constitute a lack of appropriate caution or attention, nor does it imply a failure to reasonably consider other road users.
To substantiate this, we took photographs at the incident site of other large vehicles navigating turns and measured the width of the tour bus compared to that of the road.
Court Proceedings：
After the trial, the court acknowledged that it is unavoidable for large vehicles to cross lines when driving on narrow bends and found that the defendant did not violate the standards of appropriate caution or attention, nor did they fail to reasonably consider other road users. Consequently, the court ruled that the charge of negligent driving against the defendant was not established.
Additionally, the court noted that the bus driver’s crossing of the lines was unavoidable and did not indicate any self-incriminating behaviour, awarding the defendant $30,000 in legal costs.
UNIT B, 26/F, UNITED CENTRE, 95 QUEENSWAY, ADMIRALTY, HONG KONG
Phone no. : +852 3841 7828
Fax : +852 3841 7838
E-mail : info@lolawyers.com.hk
Contact us
Select case type