LCQ19: Combating traffic offences
*********************************
Question:
It has been reported that after the occurrence of traffic accidents recently, many drivers who caused the accidents chose to hit and run or refused to provide the drivers' personal particulars. There are views that the reason for the drivers who caused the accidents taking such actions is the lighter penalty for the relevant traffic offences, thereby enabling them to circumvent more serious offences such as causing casualties by dangerous driving, which reflected the existence of legal loopholes in the authorities' efforts to combat traffic offences. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of persons who were (i) arrested, (ii) prosecuted, (iii) convicted after trial and on own plea for being involved in traffic accidents in each of the past five years, together with a breakdown by the offenses involving the drivers concerned (including but not limited to (a) careless driving, (b) causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving, (c) causing death by dangerous driving, (d) failing to stop after a traffic accident, (e) failing to report after a traffic accident, and (f) refusing to provide the driver's information after a traffic accident);
(2) given that under the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap. 374) (the Ordinance), the maximum penalty for refusal to give information on the driver of a vehicle suspected of having committed an offence under the Ordinance is liable to a fine of $10,000 and an imprisonment for six months, whereas the maximum penalty for dangerous driving causing death is a fine of $50,000 and an imprisonment for 10 years; disqualification from driving for not less than five years on first conviction and not less than 10 years or life on subsequent conviction, there are views that the disparity in the penalties between the two offences is significant, which may indirectly encourage drivers who caused accidents to circumvent serious offences by refusing to give personal particulars, whether the Government has plans to increase the penalties and maximum penalty for refusal to give a driver's personal particulars, so as to enhance the deterrent effect; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(3) it is learnt that if the registered owner of the vehicle concerned is a limited company and the relevant person refused to give the driver's personal particulars after the traffic accident, the penalty is only limited to a fine and no one has to be imprisoned, whether the Government has plans to review the responsibility of the registrant of the vehicle concerned after a traffic accident, e.g. whether it will hold the responsible individuals of companies of the vehicle involved (including director, general manager or company secretary) responsible for the traffic accident, and whether it will study empowering the Commissioner for Transport to refuse to issue licences to owners of company vehicles who have repeatedly committed offences under section 63(1) of the Ordinance; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(4) given that Schedule 8 to the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221) sets out the level of fines for offences, but there are views that the Schedule was last revised in 1994 and has failed to adequately reflect the severity of some of the offences (including behaviour in contravention of traffic legislation) taking into account the current social environment and economic changes, whether the Government has plans to review the Schedule and increase the corresponding amounts of fines; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(5) given that under the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap. 227), the maximum sentence Magistrates' Courts can impose is generally two years' imprisonment and a fine of $100,000; and maximum three years' imprisonment where there are two or more indictable offences being dealt with by the courts at the same time, whether the Government will review the Ordinance and study expanding the Magistrates' power to impose imprisonment and fine in parallel, so as to ensure that they can impose deterrent penalties when more serious offences (including contravention of traffic legislation) are being adjudicated; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
Reply:
President,
After consulting the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF), the Department of Justice, and the Judiciary Administration, my consolidated reponse to the questions raised by the Hon Yung Hoi-yan on combating traffic offences is as follows:
(1) The numbers of arrests related to the offences mentioned in the question from 2020 to 2024 are listed in the table below. Apart from the initial figures, which may have been influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, the numbers have remained generally stable in recent years.
| Offences | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
| Careless Driving | 26 | 48 | 25 | 36 | 34 |
| Causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving | 84 | 93 | 102 | 103 | 102 |
| Causing death by dangerous driving | 51 | 55 | 54 | 56 | 34 |
| Failing to stop after a traffic accident | 7 | 20 | 24 | 23 | 33 |
| Failing to report a traffic accident | 7 | 18 | 24 | 20 | 31 |
| Failing to give particulars after a traffic accident | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
The HKPF does not maintain a breakdown of statistical data for "prosecutions", "convictions through trial", or "guilty pleas".
(2) and (3) In accordnance with sections 63(1), (2) and (3) and 63B(2) and (3) of the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap. 374) (the Ordinance), if the driver of a vehicle is suspected of having committed an offence under the Ordinance, or an accident occurs owing to the presence of a vehicle on a road, a police officer may, within six months after the date of the alleged offence or accident, demand any person to provide the personal particulars of the driver involved and the relationship (if any) of the person to the driver concerned. Sections 63B(5) and (7) of the Ordinance provide that any person who contravenes section 63B(2) or (3) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine at level 3 (i.e. $10,000) and to imprisonment for six months, unless the person proves that he did not know, and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained, the personal particulars of the driver involved.
The Government agrees that a registered vehicle owner should have a certain degree of responsibility with regard to who drives the vehicle registered under his name. However, the registered owner may not actually have full control of all operational information of his vehicle. Therefore, the current section 63B of the Ordinance provides a defence provision to exempt registered vehicle owners from the responsibility of providing driver information in respect of the vehicle concerned under certain circumstances to strike a proper balance.
The HKPF has consistently enforced the law strictly and effectively, striving to bring offenders to justice. When investigating traffic accidents, apart from requiring the registered vehicle owner to provide information on the driver who may have been involved in the accident under section 63 of the Ordinance, the HKPF will, depending on the nature of the case, use various methods to gather evidence. These methods include analysing footage from nearby security cameras, dash cameras, or even fingerprints to identify the driver involved. In other words, even if the HKPF cannot obtain information of the driver who may have been involved in the accident from the registered owner, there are still ways for the HKPF to find out the cause of the accident through other means and to prosecute the suspected offender.
The Government will continue to pay heed to stakeholders' views and review the legislation when appropriate.
(4) Schedule 8 to the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221) sets out different levels of fines applicable to penalty provisions under various ordinances. Bureaux and departments will from time to time review and propose adjustments to penalties under relevant legislation based on their policy considerations to ensure that the penalties reflect the severity of the offences. The Government will review the fine levels table as appropriate.
(5) The scope of charges heard in the Magistrates' Courts includes summary offences and indictable offences, with the maximum penalty for indictable offences generally being imprisonment for two years and a fine of $100,000. The Government may, in accordance with relevant policies, empower magistrates to impose maximum penalties under specific legislation when enacting or amending such laws to enhance deterrent effect, instead of amending the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap. 227). Currently, certain ordinances already authorise magistrates to impose a maximum penalty of up to three years' imprisonment and a fine of $5 million for a single offence. In addition, while all criminal proceedings commence in the Magistrates' Courts, more serious indictable offences may be transferred to the District Court or the Court of First Instance of the High Court for trial. The District Court has a sentencing limit of up to seven years' imprisonment, while the Court of First Instance may impose the maximum penalty prescribed by the relevant legislative provisions. This mechanism has been operating effectively.
Currently, different levels of courts (including the Magistrates' Courts) have distinct judicial jurisdictions, allowing cases to be reasonably allocated based on their nature, severity, and complexity to ensure the efficiency of judicial operations. Any proposals to adjust the judicial jurisdiction of individual court levels (including the Magistrates' Courts) should go through a comprehensive and prudent review and an extensive consultation with stakeholders, before any decisions are made. Key considerations include the demarcation of judicial jurisdiction among different court levels, ensuring that each level of courts has adequate judicial manpower and legal support to handle relevant cases, as well as the overall resources, facilities, and supporting arrangements of the courts.
Ends/Wednesday, July 23, 2025
Issued at HKT 12:40
Issued at HKT 12:40
NNNN