Careless driving is unfortunately a common offence in Hong Kong. This article will discuss three topics: (i) what constitutes careless driving; (ii) proving / disproving careless driving; and (iii) consequences of careless driving.
What constitutes careless driving?
Careless driving is a criminal offence under s.38 of Cap. 374 (Road Traffic Ordinance). According to this section, a person drives carelessly if “on a road he drives a vehicle without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road”.
What is “without due care and attention”?
The test for whether the driver drove “without due care and attention” is whether the defendant exercised the degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent driver would exercise in the circumstances of the case.
The standard of care and attention of a “reasonable and prudent driver” is an objective standard. That means the same standard applies to all defendants, regardless of their driving skill and experience. If the driver was in fact exercising the degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent driver would exercise, then he or she would not be convicted.
“Without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road”
Note that this section is only relevant if other persons using the road are actually affected. The phrase “other persons using the road” can include passengers in a vehicle driven by the defendant. Note that there does not need to be damage or injury caused for this section to apply.
Proving / disproving careless driving in court
Based on the facts of the case, the court could draw the irresistible inference that, without reasonable explanation, the driver must have been careless. Some examples where an inference of careless driving has been drawn in the absence of a reasonable explanation:
- A vehicle hit a pedestrian who was crossing the road
- A vehicle crossed the center line and led to an accident
- The driver lost control of the vehicle and it resulted in a collision with another vehicle
As such, if there is some evidence of carelessness, the driver should be ready to provide an explanation to show that his or her driving was not careless.
According to section 109 of Road Traffic Ordinance, a driver’s violation of the Road User’s Code may be relied upon by the prosecution as tending to establish liability in a criminal proceeding (such as in a proceeding that involves careless driving). However, note that violating the code does not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings.
Consequences of careless driving
According to section 38(1) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, the maximum sentence of careless driving is 6 months of imprisonment and a $5000 fine. According to section 69(1) of the same ordinance, the court can also disqualify the driver for any period as it thinks fit.
If the careless driving did not lead to death or serious injury, the court will usually impose a monetary fine, and will not imprison or disqualify the defendant.
It should also be noted that if the careless driving led to damage or personal injury, the driver may bear civil liability aside from criminal liability.
In Hong Kong, “drink driving” is a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap. 374). A person commits an offence and is liable if he or she drives or attempts to drive or is in charge of a motor vehicle on any road while he is under the influence of alcohol to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the motor vehicle. It is also a separate offence to, without reasonable excuse, fail or refuse to provide a specimen of breath, blood or urine when required by a police officer.
Prescribed limit
Exceeding any one of the following amounts constitutes “exceeding the prescribed limit”:
- Breath: not less than 22 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath (≥ 22 μg/100 mL breath);
- Blood: not less than 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood (≥ 50 mg/100 mL blood);
- Urine: not less than 67 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of urine (≥ 67 mg/100 mL urine).
When may the police require tests?
If you are involved in a traffic accident (whether you are at fault), commit a moving traffic offence, or are reasonably suspected of drink driving, a police officer may require you to undergo a roadside preliminary breath test. If the screening indicates you may be over the limit, you may be required to provide an evidential specimen of breath for analysis on an approved instrument, or a specimen of blood or urine for laboratory analysis. Failing or refusing to provide a specimen without reasonable excuse is itself a separate offence. The relevant powers and duties are set out in sections 39B and 39C of Cap. 374.
Common prosecution routes (overview)
- Driving, attempting to drive, or being in charge of a motor vehicle while exceeding the prescribed limit (sections 39 and 39A);
- Driving while under the influence of drink to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle;
- Failing or refusing without reasonable excuse to provide a specimen (sections 39B and 39C).
Penalties and disqualification (three-tier system)
- Maximum penalty: a fine of up to HK$25,000 and imprisonment for 3 years. The court must also order mandatory disqualification, direct the offender to attend a Driving Improvement Course, and 10 points will be recorded under the Driving-offence Points System.
- Minimum disqualification periods are tiered by alcohol level (first offence / repeat offence):
- Tier 1: 22 to < 35 μg/100 mL breath (equivalents apply) → 6 months / 2 years;
- Tier 2: ≥ Tier 1 and < 66 μg/100 mL breath → 1 year / 3 years;
- Tier 3: ≥ 66 μg/100 mL breath → 2 years / 5 years.
Refusing to provide a specimen, or being “under the influence to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control,” attracts a minimum disqualification period at Tier 3.
Points commonly overlooked
- “Not actually driving” still counts: even if the vehicle is not moving, a person on a road who is in charge of the vehicle and at or above the prescribed limit may be prosecuted.
- “No test, no case?”: refusing to provide a specimen without reasonable excuse is a distinct offence, and disqualification is treated as Tier 3.
Summary
In summary, while Hong Kong law prescribes clear limits, testing procedures and mandatory disqualification for drink driving, the safest and lawful course remains “don’t drink and drive,” and seek timely legal advice where needed.
Hong Kong’s New Cybersecurity Law: What Businesses Need to Know Background A new cybersecurity law – the Protection of Critical Infrastructures (Computer Systems) Ordinance (Cap. 653) came into force in Hong Kong on 1 January 2026. It is designed to protect the security of the computer systems of critical infrastructure from cyberattacks. This is the…
Advance Decision on Life-sustaining Treatment Ordinance Advance Decision on Life-sustaining Treatment Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) was passed at the Legislative Council on 20 November 2024 and gazetted on 29 November 2024. Following a buffering period of 18 months, the Ordinance shall come into effect in May 2026. The Ordinance establishes legislative frameworks for advance medical directives…
The firm extends its warmest congratulations to our Partner, Olivia Kung on completing her term as Chair of the Publications Committee of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association (IPBA).During her tenure, Olivia led the transformation of the IPBA Journal into a publication that not only explores thought leadership in law but also reflects the cultural diversity of the legal profession across the Asia-Pacific and beyond. We are also proud to celebrate Olivia’s appointment as Vice-President of the IPBA — an inspiring milestone in her 13-year journey with the association, which began through the Law Society of Hong Kong’s sponsorship program.
The firm further congratulates the IPBA and President Priti Suri on a successful Annual Conference in New Delhi, and joins Olivia in looking forward to welcoming international delegates to Hong Kong in 2028, when the city will host the IPBA Annual Conference.
To further strengthen collaboration on Mainland enterprises listing in Hong Kong, on 23 January 2026, our firm’s partners Mr. Stanley Chan, Ms. Artemis Szeto, and KSK’s greater bay lawyer Ms. Joyce Tung, attended a seminar themed “Hong Kong Listing Regime—Opportunities and Challenges.”
The seminar provided an overview analysis of the core frameworks of the Listing Rules and the Securities and Futures Ordinance, covering key areas such as the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited’s 2025 review, streamlining of the new listing application approval process, the strategy of listing on A-shares first followed by H-shares, and an overview of the Hong Kong listing regime together with case studies. The aim was to deepen the industry’s understanding of the Hong Kong listing regime and its requirements.
During the event, Ms. Artemis Szeto and Ms. Joyce Tung as the speakers present the relevant topics from a professional perspective and drawing on extensive practical experience.
Following the presentation, Mr. Stanley Chan and Mr. Shi Xiangyang delivered closing remarks. They highlighted the importance of deepened collaboration, mutual development, and long-term synergy between the teams.
Through this in-depth exchange of professional insights and practical experiences, the event further strengthened the foundation of cross-border collaboration between our firm and Guangdong Kingbridge Law Firm. Moving forward, both firms will continue to leverage their respective expertise to deliver more efficient, seamless, and high-quality cross-border legal services, jointly fostering a new chapter of integrated development.
What you should know before attending an SFC interview (Part 2) In the first part of our series, we explain some of the matters you should know before attending an SFC interview, including the types of interviews and the powers of the SFC. In this part, we discuss what may happen in an interview and…
On 8 January 2026, our Associate, Ms. Joycie Wu, was invited to deliver a seminar on Hong Kong’s child protection legislations at Sham Shui Po Government Primary School.
During the seminar, Ms. Wu introduced key legislations for child protection in Hong Kong, provided the definition and examples of child abuse, discussed the role of teachers and the responsibilities of schools in child protection, reviewed the core professional values outlined in the Guidelines on Teachers’ Professional Conduct, and discussed the civil and criminal liabilities of teachers with case studies. Furthermore, Ms. Wu also explained the Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse Ordinance (Cap. 650), which has recently come into operation on 20 January 2026.
What you should know before attending an SFC interview (Part 1) Many people are worried when they receive a s.183 notice from the Securities and Futures Commission (“SFC”) to attend an interview. In one minor respect, it is like an ICAC interview; but in many other respects, it is nothing like it. In this article,…
