Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Magistrate jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

30 Aug 2022

LAI CHEE YING v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2688
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL738/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because on proper statutory construction "specified evidence" in Schedule 1 of the Implementation Rules includes journalistic material; a designated magistrate had power and discretion to issue the 2022 warrant after considering JM as a relevant factor; the 2022 warrant is valid and enforceable subject to exclusion of material protected by legal professional privilege.
1 Nov 2021

THAPA KAMALA v. HO LAI MING (Deputy Special Magistrate at Eastern Magistrates’ Courts)

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1362
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1719/2019

The court held the Statement of Claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action under ss125/126 Magistrates Ordinance and was not an abuse of process; statutory provisions permitting actions against magistrates meant the claim could proceed and judicial immunity did not automatically defeat it; the defendant's failure to comply with the Unless Order was intentional and contumelious, no relief from sanction had been sought, and interlocutory judgment for damages to be assessed should be entered against the defendant.
20 Aug 2020

LEE CHU MING, MARTIN AND OTHERS v. A PERMANENT MAGISTRATE, EASTERN MAGISTRACY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2028
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1396/2020

The application for judicial review is dismissed: the search warrants issued under s50(7) PFO were not ultra vires for lack of particularity, the absence of detailed ex ante digital search protocols on the face of the warrants did not render them invalid, retention pending lawful execution was not unreasonable on the facts, and though the Magistrate erred in declining jurisdiction to hear set-aside applications that error is academic given the lack of merit in the substantive grounds; searches remain constrained by an implied requirement of reasonableness and by after-the-event judicial revie…
21 May 2012

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN
Court

Magistrates' Courts
Case number

ESCC2233/2011

The magistrate declined to hear the stay application because the alleged prejudice concerns unfairness in the use of evidence at trial, which falls outside the limited categories of abuses of the Magistrates Court process that examining magistrates should decide; an examining magistrate does not have a statutory or implied power to exclude otherwise admissible evidence under section 81A in preliminary inquiry and, even if some limited discretion exists, the preferable approach is to leave determinations about admissibility and exclusion to the trial judge.
22 Jul 2005

YEUNG CHUN PONG AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

YEUNG CHUN PONG AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV102/2005

The Court of Appeal held the mandamus was improperly granted because a committing magistrate does not have a general jurisdiction to determine an autrefois or extended autrefois plea in committal proceedings except in narrow cases where the abuse directly affects fairness of the committal; Article 11(6) does not require committal determination of such pleas (and does not apply to foreign convictions), and pleas can be raised at trial or before the High Court in supervisory proceedings; accordingly the mandamus was set aside and costs ordered nisi.
27 Sept 2000

CHENG CHUI PING v. SUPERINTENDENT OF TAI LAM CENTRE FOR WOMEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHENG CHUI PING v. SUPERINTENDENT OF TAI LAM CENTRE FOR WOMEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1985/2000

The magistrate correctly declined to determine whether the alleged offences were time‑barred under US law because the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance confines the magistrate's function to statutory criteria (s.10(6)(b) and s.2(2)) and Article 8's time‑limit disclosure is a procedural matter for the Executive; time‑bar issues do not negate that the offences are 'relevant offences' and do not prevent committal where requirements are met.
24 May 2000

HKSAR v. TSOI KEI LUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. TSOI KEI LUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA340/2000

Section 113(1) applies only to final determinations of a magistrate; the magistrate's rulings on the return day were interlocutory matters in the course of committal proceedings and therefore not appealable to the High Court under s.113(1); the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.
27 May 1999

NEW CHUAN KONG INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTEHR v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

Citation

NEW CHUAN KONG INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTEHR v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC9/1999

The Appeal Committee certified questions 1 and 3 as points of law of great and general importance and granted leave to the Court of Final Appeal to decide them, finding the recognizance issue and the proper construction of s.67 merited authoritative determination; it held the High Court's construction of s.120(1) to be correct and therefore declined leave on question 2; it also declined to grant leave under the substantial and grave injustice limb in respect of the costs order.
17 Feb 1998

CHEN CHONG GUI v. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF LAI CHI KOK RECEPTION CENTRE

Citation

CHEN CHONG GUI v. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF LAI CHI KOK RECEPTION CENTRE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV233/1997

The Court affirmed that under the statutory scheme governing extradition (Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1989 as applied to Hong Kong) a magistrate does not have jurisdiction at the committal stage of extradition proceedings to hear and determine a plea of autrefois convict; s.31 CPO does not expand committal powers to include such pleas and the appropriate safeguard against double jeopardy lies with the executive (Secretary of State/Governor) and, where appropriate, by habeas corpus or judicial review.
13 Oct 1995

In re Tin Sau Kwong

Citation

In re Tin Sau Kwong
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2998/1995

The magistrate had jurisdiction and discretion to permit withdrawal and substitution of charges during committal proceedings; his exercise of that discretion was not flawed or Wednesbury-unreasonable; and the court will not supervise the Attorney General's prosecution decisions except in exceptional, initially justiciable cases amounting to outrageous conduct.