R. v. YEUNG LEE TRANSPORTATION & ENGINEERING LIMITED

R. v. YEUNG LEE TRANSPORTATION & ENGINEERING LIMITED

An information that mistakenly names a non‑existent company is not necessarily a nullity where the intended defendant (the registered owner) is identifiable; such a defect is amendable under s.27 of the Magistrates Ordinance and amendment is not precluded by the six‑month limitation if the information is not a nullity; the magistrate's factual findings that the lens cap was missing before the accident were open to him and support the conviction.

Citation
R. v. YEUNG LEE TRANSPORTATION & ENGINEERING LIMITED
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Appellant: Yeung Lee Transportation & Engineering Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 July 1994
Case Number
HCMA407/1994
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Criminal Appeal / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal in the High Court (appellate Jurisdiction)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and fine upheld.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Information, Nullity of Information, Statute of Limitations, Substitution of Defendant, Evidentiary Assessment
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Procedural Law Administrative Law Amendment of Information Nullity of Information Statute of Limitations Substitution of Defendant Evidentiary Assessment

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

Yeung Lee Transportation & Engineering Limited

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Criminal Appeal / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal in the High Court (appellate Jurisdiction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an information that names a non-existent company is a nullity and therefore incapable of amendment
  2. 2 Whether a magistrate may amend an information after the statutory six‑month limitation where the information is not a nullity
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate's factual finding that the lens cap was missing prior to the accident was supported by the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

An information that mistakenly names a non‑existent company is not necessarily a nullity where the intended defendant (the registered owner) is identifiable; such a defect is amendable under s.27 of the Magistrates Ordinance and amendment is not precluded by the six‑month limitation if the information is not a nullity; the magistrate's factual findings that the lens cap was missing before the accident were open to him and support the conviction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and fine upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction and $500 fine affirmed