線軚 撞欄 不小心駕駛

“What the magistrate appears to be saying is that as the road was wet and slippery, the appellant had a duty to drive at a speed and at a distance behind the car in front of him so that if that car braked suddenly he would be able to stop in time… there must be some positive evidence of carelessness in a criminal prosecution unless the evidence is so strong that, in the absence of any explanation from the defendant, he must have been negligent.”

雖然當時是下大雨，路面濕滑，上訴人駕車「落斜及轉彎」「跌軚失控」，但本席實看不出在本案有直接證據（direct evidence）指上訴人有不小心或疏忽，有「跌軚」情況、有交通意外發生並不等如駕駛者不小心。上訴人當時的車速是40公里，裁判官引用推論指上訴人當時是不小心。本席看來，裁判官是基於有「跌軚失控」情況發生來指上訴人的速度是太快或沒有察覺落斜轉彎的需要。雖然裁判官並無提「不證自明」，但裁判官於本案等同是接納了「不證自明」此法律原則。故此，本席裁定定罪是不安全及不穩妥的，裁定上訴得直。