ATTORNEY GENERAL v. GEORGE TAN AND OTHERS

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. GEORGE TAN AND OTHERS

The High Court confirmed it has jurisdiction to entertain a declaratory application touching committal proceedings but will only grant such relief in exceptional circumstances; on the construction of s.81(2) Cap.227 the proposed alternative procedure was not legally permissible and the Attorney General's application for a declaration failed (Crown conceded insufficiency of statutory wording).

Citation
ATTORNEY GENERAL v. GEORGE TAN AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; 1st Defendant: George TAN; 2nd Defendant: Bentley HO; 3rd Defendant: Richard WALLIS; 4th Defendant: David BEGG; 5th Defendant: Anthony LO
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 November 1984
Case Number
HCMP2947/1984
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (declaratory Relief) Arising From Committal Proceedings / Application to High Court During Ongoing Preliminary Inquiry/committal Proceedings
Outcome
Application dismissed; no declaratory relief granted
Legal Topics
Committal Proceedings, Magistrates Ordinance S.81, Declaratory Relief Jurisdiction and Discretion, Judicial Review Vs Declaratory Remedy
Source Language
EN
Criminal Procedure Statutory Interpretation Public Law Declaratory Relief Committal Proceedings Magistrates Ordinance S.81 Declaratory Relief Jurisdiction and Discretion Judicial Review Vs Declaratory Remedy

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

George TAN

1st Defendant

Bentley HO

2nd Defendant

Richard WALLIS

3rd Defendant

David BEGG

4th Defendant

Anthony LO

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (declaratory Relief) Arising From Committal Proceedings / Application to High Court During Ongoing Preliminary Inquiry/committal Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether High Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief affecting conduct of committal proceedings
  2. 2 Whether s.81(2) Magistrates Ordinance permits the proposed alternative procedure for reading/signing depositions
  3. 3 Whether it is proper to exercise discretion to grant such a declaration in these circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court confirmed it has jurisdiction to entertain a declaratory application touching committal proceedings but will only grant such relief in exceptional circumstances; on the construction of s.81(2) Cap.227 the proposed alternative procedure was not legally permissible and the Attorney General's application for a declaration failed (Crown conceded insufficiency of statutory wording).

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no declaratory relief granted

Orders

  • No order as to costs