22 Oct 2018
The Court held the applicant's contention based on s.18 and the Inglis authority was at least reasonably arguable and the judge below erred in refusing leave without addressing s.18; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was to be granted though the court did not decide the substantive merits.
18 Jan 2001
The Court held that the offence under section 40(1B)(b) of the Buildings Ordinance is a continuing offence until the works required by a valid order are properly completed; the appellant was the registered owner and had been validly served; she failed to establish a reasonable excuse or an applicable multi-owner defence; the Magistrate had jurisdiction and complied with procedural requirements; conviction and fines were therefore upheld.
16 Oct 1992
The Court dismissed the appeal: Mayo J.'s stay was proper because the appellant relied on essentially the same ground (that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction) as in an earlier habeas corpus application and was thus barred by s.23 and the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process; the failure to give directions under Order 54 r.5 was a procedural irregularity not a jurisdictional nullity and did not invalidate the stay.
6 Jan 1992
The High Court dismissed the applications for judicial review: the magistrate's identified errors (focusing on 'extra' delay and initial remarks on reasons) were not material because proper consideration of the totality of delay and evidence would have produced the same conclusion that a stay was not justified, and the Crown could not raise the late jurisdictional point without first seeking leave for judicial review.
12 Sept 1985
Section 69(1) authorises disqualification only for offences in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle; the offences of moving a vehicle after an accident (s57(1)) and failing to report an accident (s56(3) and (6)) are not such offences, therefore the disqualification orders exceeded the Magistrate's jurisdiction and must be set aside.
14 Sept 1973
The magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction in imposing six months' imprisonment for the Section 17 offence because the statutory maximum is three months; therefore the six‑month sentence was reduced to three months and ordered to run concurrently with the three‑month sentence for the first charge.
7 Mar 1973
Section 33(1) of the Public Order Ordinance is mandatory and exclusive as to disposition on conviction; a magistrate who records a conviction under that provision must impose either the statutory minimum imprisonment or direct committal to a detention centre. The magistrate's order sending the 15-year-old to a training centre was unauthorized and is set aside; respondent must be sentenced to the statutory minimum imprisonment, subject to any lawful transfer under s7 of the Training Centre Ordinance.
1 Nov 1969
The Full Court held that the magistrate's committals were supportable only in respect of the second charge: deficiencies in evidence before the magistrate concerning authority to proceed and the statutory arrangement were cured by affidavits filed to this court under s8(4), the first charge did not constitute a "relevant offence" under the Order and therefore committal on that charge could not be supported, and the documentary evidence admitted by the magistrate (though containing some hearsay and procedural irregularities) was properly admitted and produced a prima facie case as to the secon…