Read More
The High Court of Hong Kong has dismissed an appeal by Douglas Stephen Clark, a prominent intellectual property lawyer and partner at Tanner De Witt, upholding his conviction for careless driving.
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Clark was previously fined HK$1,500 following a trial over an incident in which he crossed a double white line while driving a private goods vehicle in the Eastern Harbour Crossing.
An unsafe lane change at the tunnel exit
The incident occurred on August 30, 2023, near the exit of the Eastern Harbour Crossing. According to prosecution witnesses, Clark abruptly merged his vehicle from the third lane on the left into the second lane on the left.
This sudden maneuver forced another driver in that lane to slam on the brakes to avoid a collision, with the distance between the two vehicles shrinking to less than a foot at one point.
During the original trial, the magistrate ruled that Clark’s lane change was the primary cause of the sudden braking.
The magistrate emphasized that even though the other driver was speeding at the time, Clark still held the fundamental responsibility to ensure it was safe to change lanes.
He should have chosen his lane earlier or slowed down to let the other vehicle pass, rather than forcing them to brake.
Defense expert testimony properly rejected
In his appeal, Clark raised 14 grounds of challenge. He argued that the original magistrate erred in rejecting the testimony of his defense expert witness and disputed whether the prosecution's witness could accurately judge the distance between the vehicles by eye.
However, Deputy High Court Judge Lily Wong Sze-lai dismissed all 14 grounds of appeal.
In her judgment, she ruled that the original magistrate was entirely correct to reject the defense expert's testimony, noting that the witness was not actually a qualified traffic accident reconstruction expert.
Wong further clarified that the conviction rested on the fact that Clark’s lane change forced another vehicle to brake, making the other driver’s speeding completely irrelevant to Clark's own liability for careless driving.
