31 Mar 2022
The appeal was dismissed as improperly constituted because a magistrate's ex parte refusal to issue a summons is not a conviction, order or determination appealable under s113 and instead is amenable to judicial review; alternatively, the magistrate did not err in refusing the summonses for lack of a prima facie case or because the applications were improper.
31 Jul 2020
The magistrate lawfully exercised her s.8 discretion to refuse to issue private summonses because the informations and subsequent submissions contained only bare allegations and no material prima facie evidence of the essential ingredients of the alleged offences; Article 10's guarantee of a public hearing does not apply to a magistrate's pre‑summons refusal; ss.21 and 22 cannot be invoked to compel production of CCTV prior to the institution of proceedings; service by notice‑board posting under s.115(4)(c) was valid in the circumstances; accordingly the appeals are dismissed.
31 Jul 2020
The magistrate properly refused to issue the private summonses for good cause because the appellant failed to provide requested particulars or supporting materials and thus the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not prima facie present; service by noticeboard was valid; allegations of bias were unproven; and Article 10 did not entitle the appellant to a public hearing at the summons‑application stage. All three appeals are dismissed.
31 Jul 2020
The magistrate correctly refused to issue the private summonses because the appellant failed to adduce any material establishing the essential ingredients of the alleged offences prima facie; therefore there was 'good cause' under s.8(1B)(b) to refuse; Article 10 does not require a public hearing for such pre‑charge applications; ss.21 and 22 do not permit ordering production of CCTV prior to issuance of a summons; no actual or apparent bias was shown.
31 Jul 2020
The Magistrate properly exercised discretion under s8 to refuse to issue the private summonses because the appellant failed to supply particulars, materials or evidence showing the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were prima facie present; Article 10 did not apply to this preliminary exercise so no public hearing or public pronouncement was required; no actual or apparent bias was established; accordingly the appeals are dismissed.
31 Jul 2020
The magistrate properly exercised the power under s.8 to consider the information and for good cause refuse to issue a private summons where the sole material provided was insufficient to identify the essential ingredients of the alleged offence (aiding and abetting); Article 10 was not engaged because no criminal charge or determination of rights in a suit had been made; service by notice‑board complied with s.115(4)(c); requests for CCTV were not justified under ss.21-22 prior to institution of proceedings. Therefore the appeal was dismissed.
27 Mar 2018
The magistrates lawfully refused to issue the private summonses for good cause because the informations failed to disclose the essential elements of the alleged assaults and any factual basis for alleging participation or aiding and abetting by the intended defendants; there is no general right to an open/public hearing before a magistrate refuses to issue a private summons.
4 Mar 2016
The magistrate acted within discretion in refusing to issue the private summonses because the appellant's allegations did not disclose a criminal offence and lacked substance; there was no demonstrable bias by the magistrate; and ss21-22 Magistrates Ordinance do not permit compelling production of CCTV absent instituted proceedings; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
30 Jun 2015
The magistrate acted within the statutory discretion in section 8(1B)(b) to refuse issuance of a summons for good cause after considering the materials; the appellant failed to disclose sufficient particulars to show a prima facie offence of perverting the course of public justice; there was no legal requirement for a public hearing or provision of audio recording for such an application; no appearance of bias existed; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
1 Jun 2015
The magistrate correctly applied the test from Tsui Koon Wah and section 8 of the Magistrates Ordinance, concluded the two‑page information did not disclose any criminal offence or even a prima facie case against the proposed defendants, and lawfully determined the applications in chambers; refusals to issue summonses, to admit the unauthenticated audio recording, to grant adjournment and to initiate contempt proceedings were proper and the appeals are dismissed.