Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Committal procedure

Legal area

Court

24 Nov 2023

MA CHING YEUNG PHILIP v. CHIN WAI YEE WINNIE

Citation

[2023] HKFC 198
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC11432/2018

The court found, on the criminal standard, that the Petitioner had or had had means to pay the LCA (including realizable value in pledged shares or ability to force sale by ceasing interest payments, residual value or sale of the Watches and unused KC loan facility and the HK$1.5m receipt) and deliberately chose to prioritise other creditors rather than satisfy the LCA Order; the defence of impossibility and the argument about the jointly owned UK property did not absolve him; a sealed penal notice was personally served on 13 January 2023 so punishment is limited to breaches after that date;…
2 Sept 2016

HKSAR v. NGO VAN NAM

Citation

HKSAR v. NGO VAN NAM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC418/2014

The Court held that ordinary voluntary confessions and cooperation are generally subsumed within the established one‑third guilty‑plea discount and a judge is not obliged to award a discount greater than one‑third; the strength of the prosecution case is irrelevant to the quantum of the plea discount; the Court clarified sentencing practice by endorsing a range of discounts by stage (one‑third at committal/earlier, 25% pre‑listing, 20% first day of trial, lesser during trial) and ruled that in CACC 418/2014 the appellant’s sentence was not excessive but in CACC 327/2015 the judge erred in red…
24 Apr 2015

HKSAR v. ZILINSKAS VALDAS

Citation

HKSAR v. ZILINSKAS VALDAS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC475/2014

The court found the plea was equivocal and the defendant laboured under a misapprehension of the nature of the offence compounded by language and communication difficulties; having made sufficient inquiry including review of recordings the court exercised its discretion to allow withdrawal of the guilty plea prior to sentence.
26 May 1992

RE THONGCHAI SANGUANDIKUL

Citation

RE THONGCHAI SANGUANDIKUL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP802/1992

The magistrate properly confined himself to the admissible evidence and made a prima facie finding justifying committal; the Attorney‑General's Guidelines do not impose a duty of disclosure on extradition magistrates at committal and the magistrate lacks power under the treaty and extradition legislation to order the general disclosure sought; alleged nondisclosure and inclusion of inadmissible material did not render the committal unfair or void, therefore both the habeas corpus and judicial review applications fail.

Hong Kong Case Law

MA CHING YEUNG PHILIP v. CHIN WAI YEE WINNIE

HKSAR v. NGO VAN NAM

HKSAR v. ZILINSKAS VALDAS

RE THONGCHAI SANGUANDIKUL