HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN

Adjournment refused because delay was largely attributable to the defence, prosecution had been ready and had set out reasonable conditions for testing months earlier, ample time remained to conduct DNA testing before legal arguments and trial, and the defendant's assertion that new counsel required ten months was unreasonable; therefore the court fixed arraignment for 22 April 2013, legal arguments then to proceed, and the trial proper to commence on 22 May 2013 with no further adjournment.

Citation
HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN
Parties
Prosecution: Department of Justice; Defendant: Accused
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 January 2013
Case Number
HCCC182/2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Review / Application for Adjournment
Outcome
Application for adjournment refused except that arraignment and legal arguments to be heard from 22 April 2013 and trial proper to commence 22 May 2013
Legal Topics
DNA Testing, Adjournment, Disclosure, Chain of Custody, Delay, Right to Fair Trial
Source Language
EN
Criminal Procedure Forensic Evidence Trial Management DNA Testing Adjournment Disclosure Chain of Custody Delay +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Department of Justice

Prosecution

Accused

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Review / Application for Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial should be adjourned to permit further DNA testing in the UK
  2. 2 Whether the trial should be adjourned to permit instruction of new counsel requiring extended preparation time
  3. 3 Allocation of costs and responsibility for DNA testing and preservation/chain of custody concerns

Ratio Decidendi

Adjournment refused because delay was largely attributable to the defence, prosecution had been ready and had set out reasonable conditions for testing months earlier, ample time remained to conduct DNA testing before legal arguments and trial, and the defendant's assertion that new counsel required ten months was unreasonable; therefore the court fixed arraignment for 22 April 2013, legal arguments then to proceed, and the trial proper to commence on 22 May 2013 with no further adjournment.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment refused except that arraignment and legal arguments to be heard from 22 April 2013 and trial proper to commence 22 May 2013

Orders

  • Application for adjournment refused
  • Arraignment fixed for 22 April 2013 and legal arguments to be heard from that date