9 Feb 2018
The defendant had absconded without reasonable excuse and the surety failed to fulfil his obligations; the surety did not discharge the heavy burden to show that a lesser sum should be forfeited; accordingly the full deposited sum of $50,000 is forfeited.
26 Mar 1987
The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to enforce and forfeit recognizances entered under s.84(b) of the District Court Ordinance and s.114 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance applies to permit mitigation; on the facts no mitigation was warranted and the recognizance was properly declared forfeited and ordered estreated in full.
26 May 1986
The Court held that the sureties failed to discharge the heavy burden of showing lack of culpability or undue hardship and, given the seriousness of the surety obligation and the fact cash deposits were deliberately made, it was not fair and just to reduce the sums; accordingly the full cash deposits of $250,000 by each surety were forfeited.
23 Dec 1982
Where a defendant fails to return for a required hearing the recognizance is prima facie forfeited; the surety must prove he took all reasonable steps to secure the defendant's attendance to obtain relief, and absence of such evidence mandates forfeiture.
22 Oct 1980
The court held that forfeiture is a discretionary remedy which should not be imposed in the absence of adequate notice to the surety; applying s29(2) Cap.221 as a model for alternative service, the court refused forfeiture where the notice was not left with an appropriate household member or otherwise properly served (Case No.195) but ordered forfeiture where the notice was left with a person represented to be the surety's brother at the surety's last known address (Case No.264).
14 Mar 1972
Where a recognizance of conditional discharge is breached solely by failure to be of good behaviour the correct course is to forfeit the recognizance and assess sentence for the original offence by reference to circumstances as they existed when the recognizance was taken; the breach must not be doubly penalized, and probation orders without recognizance cannot attract separate penalties for breach beyond sentence for the original offence.
8 Jun 1971
The appeal was dismissed because the payment due upon forfeiture of the recognizance was not a "sentence" under s.113(2) of the Magistrates Ordinance, the appeal was therefore improperly framed and incompetent, and the appellant did not allege wrongful forfeiture which might have supported an appeal under s.113(3).