RE CHEUNG SHU

RE CHEUNG SHU

Where the accused was asked and expressly said nothing in answer to the charge, s.82(3) is not contravened because it requires recording only of what is said in answer to the charge; accordingly the magistrate's committal was valid and no consent to the filing of an indictment was necessary.

Citation
RE CHEUNG SHU
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Accused: CHEUNG Shu
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 August 1975
Case Number
HCCC42/1975
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Consent to Prefer Indictment / Judge in Chambers (pre‑trial Committal Challenge)
Outcome
No consent to the filing of an indictment is necessary; the committal is valid.
Legal Topics
Committal Proceedings, Statutory Compliance, Interpretation of S.82(3) Magistrates Ordinance, Consent to Prefer Indictment Under S.24 A(1)(b) Criminal Procedure Ordinance
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Magistrates' Court Law Committal Proceedings Statutory Compliance Interpretation of S.82(3) Magistrates Ordinance Consent to Prefer Indictment Under S.24 A(1)(b) Criminal Procedure Ordinance

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

CHEUNG Shu

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Application for Consent to Prefer Indictment / Judge in Chambers (pre‑trial Committal Challenge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a magistrate's alleged failure to record the accused's words when the accused said nothing constitutes non‑compliance with s.82(3) of the Magistrates Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether such an alleged failure renders the committal a nullity
  3. 3 Whether consent to prefer an indictment under s.24A(1)(b) is required in the present circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Where the accused was asked and expressly said nothing in answer to the charge, s.82(3) is not contravened because it requires recording only of what is said in answer to the charge; accordingly the magistrate's committal was valid and no consent to the filing of an indictment was necessary.

Court Disposition

No consent to the filing of an indictment is necessary; the committal is valid.

Orders

  • No consent to the filing of an indictment is necessary