4 Jan 2018
Given the stage of the trial, the split medical opinions and the parties' positions, the Court exercised its discretion under s.75(4)(b)(i) to have the empanelled trial jury determine the issue of fitness to be tried; but ordered that if that jury determines the defendant is fit to be tried, the general issue will proceed before a newly empanelled jury to avoid prejudice.
25 May 2017
Given the jury's findings and on the written evidence of two consultant psychiatrists diagnosing advanced progressive dementia and recommending hospital admission, the statutory threshold in section 76(2)(a) was satisfied and the court must order admission to a mental hospital under section 76(2)(a) and Schedule 4 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance; this was the most suitable dispositional order in all the circumstances.
18 Jun 2009
The proper construction of ss.75 and 75A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance is that the same jury which, pursuant to s.75(4), finds an accused unfit to be tried may, at a separate hearing before that jury under s.75A(1)(b), determine whether the accused committed the acts constituting the charged offences; there is no requirement for a different jury, and the Court of Appeal's construction was correct.
12 Feb 2009
Where a jury determines under s75 that an accused is unfit to be tried, section 75A contemplates that the same jury will determine whether the accused did the acts charged; ss75 and 75A must be read together and do not require empanelling a separate jury in Hong Kong as the English statute does, so no material irregularity arose in using the same jury.