Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

District court ordinance s.80

  • 2 Dec 2020

    HKSAR v. CHENG YING KIT

    Citation
    [2020] HKDC 1151
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCC367/2020

    The court held that it could amend the certificate of sentence under the slip rule because the written record did not reflect the court's manifest intention; further, having regard to the 2014 amendment to s.80 DCO and subsequent authorities, a District Court sentence is not finally recorded for perfection/functus officio purposes until the written reasons are signed and delivered under s.80, so the court was not functus officio at the time of the proposed amendment.

  • 9 Feb 1999

    HKSAR v. YAU CHI LUNG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. YAU CHI LUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC271/1998

    A certificate of sentence that purports to alter the sentence pronouncement by ordering it to run consecutively, when no such order was made in open court, contravenes s.80 of the District Court Ordinance and is a nullity; the sentence stands as orally pronounced and runs from the date of imposition, with any unexpired prior sentence running concurrently as appropriate.

  • 10 Jan 1992

    R. v. LAW SIU KEUNG

    Citation
    R. v. LAW SIU KEUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC299/1991

    Transcripts of taped Reasons for Verdict that are placed on the court file must be checked and signed by the trial judge for accuracy under the obligations of s.80 District Court Ordinance and judicial duty; if transcription errors render Reasons incomprehensible the Court of Appeal will adjourn for correction and may grant bail pending resumption, and legal advisers/Crown have a duty to draw such defects to the judge's attention promptly.

  • 9 Sept 1988

    THE QUEEN v. HUI LAP KEUNG AND OTHERS

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. HUI LAP KEUNG AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC123/1988

    Although the trial judge’s Reasons for Verdict did not explicitly state that cautioned statements were admissible only against their makers nor expressly record separate consideration of each defendant, the appellate court was not satisfied there was a clear failure to apply the elementary rules; excluding the cautioned statements the unchallenged oral and documentary evidence was sufficient to support convictions for blackmail, therefore the convictions were not unsafe and leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed.