CHENG CHUI PING v. SUPERINTENDENT OF TAI LAM CENTRE FOR WOMEN AND ANOTHER

CHENG CHUI PING v. SUPERINTENDENT OF TAI LAM CENTRE FOR WOMEN AND ANOTHER

The magistrate correctly declined to determine whether the alleged offences were time‑barred under US law because the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance confines the magistrate's function to statutory criteria (s.10(6)(b) and s.2(2)) and Article 8's time‑limit disclosure is a procedural matter for the Executive; time‑bar issues do not negate that the offences are 'relevant offences' and do not prevent committal where requirements are met.

Citation
CHENG CHUI PING v. SUPERINTENDENT OF TAI LAM CENTRE FOR WOMEN AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: CHENG CHUI PING; 1st Respondent: SUPERINTENDENT OF TAI LAM CENTRE FOR WOMEN; 2nd Respondent: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 September 2000
Case Number
HCAL1985/2000
Procedural Posture
Habeas Corpus Application (extradition Context) / Judgment (application Dismissed)
Outcome
Application dismissed; committal order lawful; habeas corpus refused
Legal Topics
Extradition Procedure, Statute of Limitations, Committal Proceedings, Relevant Offence, Treaty Interpretation, Magistrate Jurisdiction, Fugitive Offenders Ordinance S10(6)(b)
Source Language
EN
Extradition Constitutional and Administrative Law Criminal Law Habeas Corpus Extradition Procedure Statute of Limitations Committal Proceedings Relevant Offence +3 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHENG CHUI PING

Applicant

SUPERINTENDENT OF TAI LAM CENTRE FOR WOMEN

1st Respondent

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Habeas Corpus Application (extradition Context) / Judgment (application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate was required to determine whether the offences were time‑barred under US law before committing the applicant
  2. 2 Whether a time‑barred offence in the requesting state is not a "relevant offence" under s.2(2) Fugitive Offenders Ordinance
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate may receive and determine expert evidence of foreign law (statute of limitations) at committal

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate correctly declined to determine whether the alleged offences were time‑barred under US law because the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance confines the magistrate's function to statutory criteria (s.10(6)(b) and s.2(2)) and Article 8's time‑limit disclosure is a procedural matter for the Executive; time‑bar issues do not negate that the offences are 'relevant offences' and do not prevent committal where requirements are met.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; committal order lawful; habeas corpus refused

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Applicant to pay costs of and occasioned by this application to the 1st respondent