HKSAR v. Wong Wai Tak Bill

DCCC 887/2023

[2026] HKDC 718

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 887 OF 2023

------------------------------

------------------------------

---------------------------------------

RULING ON COSTS

---------------------------------------

1.The defendant was charged with one count of causing death by dangerous driving. After trial, he was acquitted of the charge but convicted of careless driving.

2.The defence applied for costs of these proceedings pursuant to section 5 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance, Cap. 492. Prosecution opposed the application on the ground that the defendant brought suspicion on himself[1].

Legal principles

3.Both parties agree on the legal principles regarding court’s power to award costs. In gist, the general rule is that an acquitted defendant should be awarded costs unless there are positive reasons to deprive him/her of such costs. One of the positive reasons is the defendant brought suspicion on himself and misled the prosecution into believing that their case against him was stronger than it was[2].

4.As the defence has rightly pointed out, the fact that the defendant was acquitted of causing death by dangerous driving and convicted of careless driving instead does not, per se, deprive him of the costs[3].

Relevant findings at trial

5.My findings at trial are:

(1)  there was no collision between the defendant’s car and the deceased Ms. Lau;

(2)  there was no contravention of traffic regulations by the defendant when he made the right turn into the junction;

(3)  it was very likely that Ms. Lau was jaywalking on the pedestrian crossing when the defendant made the turn;

(4)  the defendant did not keep a proper lookout when making the turn and thus did not notice the presence of Ms. Lau;

(5)  when the defendant noticed the presence of Ms. Lau, she was already very close to his car;

(6)  the defendant was driving very slowly such that he was able to stop the car without hitting Ms. Lau;

(7)  Ms. Lau was startled by the defendant’s car such that she fell to the ground and sustained head injuries; and

(8)  Ms. Lau subsequently died of the head injuries.

Ruling

6.I have considered the submissions of both parties, which were fully set out in their written submissions.

7.As the defence has rightly pointed out, apart from the defendant’s failure to keep proper lookout during the right turn, the prosecution had not identified any dangerous manoeuvre or contravention of traffic regulations. There was no evidence of any collision. The defendant’s admissions under caution only shows his failure to keep proper lookout. In my finding, mere failure to keep proper lookout while making a right turn without any contravention of traffic regulations does not amount to dangerous driving. Thus, I do not consider the defendant has brought suspicion on himself. There is no application for certificate for two counsel. I therefore order costs of these proceedings to the defence, to be taxed if not agreed.