Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Summary vs indictable offences

Legal area

Court

7 Mar 2024

HKSAR v. TAM TAK CHI

Citation

[2024] HKCA 231
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC62/2022

The Court held that sedition as now constituted in the Crimes Ordinance (ss.9–10) is a statutory offence which displaced the old common law formulation; an intention to incite violence is not a necessary element of the statutory offence except where expressly stated (s.9(1)(f)). Section 10 offences are statutory summary offences triable according to the classification regime (CPO s.14A) and may be transferred to the District Court under the Magistrates Ordinance s.88(1)(b). The National Security Law does not convert section 10 offences into indictable offences or otherwise upset the statutory…
9 Apr 2021

HKSAR v. TAM TAK CHI

Citation

[2021] HKDC 424
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC927/2020

The court held that the National Security Law transforms sedition offences for present purposes into offences endangering national security triable on indictment but that Art 45 contemplates handling such proceedings by Hong Kong courts generally; where local provisions (Second Schedule Part III) are inconsistent with the NSL they must be adapted so as not to preclude transfer or trial in the District Court; accordingly the transfer of the sedition charges to the District Court was valid and the District Court has jurisdiction to try them.
6 Apr 2000

HKSAR v. CHEUNG CHI MING

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG CHI MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC27/1999

Convictions under section 118(1) Cap.528, punishable under s119(1), are summary offences and, absent an accompanying indictable offence, the District Court had no jurisdiction because transfers under Magistrates Ordinance s88(1) were invalid; therefore the convictions in CACC 173/1999, 536/1999, 36/2000, 51/2000, 52/2000 and 56/2000 were quashed. Offences charged under the earlier Copyright Ordinance Cap.39 s5(1) remained indictable and those convictions (CACC13/1999 and CACC27/1999) were properly before the District Court.
6 Apr 2000

HKSAR v. TAM KA KUI

Citation

HKSAR v. TAM KA KUI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC56/2000

Because section 118(1) offences under the Copyright Ordinance Cap.528 are summary offences and were not indictable, the transfers to the District Court were without jurisdiction and therefore null; convictions entered by the District Court in the affected cases must be quashed; abandonments were treated as nullities only where necessary to allow the appeal to be heard; applications based on properly indictable offences under the previous Ordinance (Cap.39 s5(1)) were not affected and leave was refused.
6 Apr 2000

HKSAR v. POON NGOK MING

Citation

HKSAR v. POON NGOK MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC536/1999

Because section 118(1) offences under Cap.528 are summary offences and were not indictable, transfers to the District Court were invalid absent a proper accompanying indictable offence; the District Court therefore lacked jurisdiction and the convictions obtained thereunder are null and must be quashed; leave to appeal is granted where appropriate and refused where the original offences were properly indictable under the old statute.
7 Mar 2000

HKSAR v. MAK WAI HON

Citation

HKSAR v. MAK WAI HON
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC106/1999

Because s.118(1) of the Copyright Ordinance (Cap.528) does not include the words 'on indictment' those offences are triable summarily only; a magistrate had no jurisdiction to transfer those summary-only offences alone to the District Court and any such transfer is null and void; convictions recorded in the District Court following such invalid transfers are a nullity and must be quashed.
10 Dec 1999

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

Citation

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

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC6/1999

The Court held that s.110(1) of the Magistrates Ordinance imposes a mandatory duty on an appellant (other than the Secretary for Justice) to enter into a recognizance within the prescribed time and failure to do so deems the appeal abandoned; consequently the SFC's failure to enter into a recognizance meant the case stated appeal was abandoned and the judge erred in refusing relief. On the second issue the Court held that s.67 of the LFETO, which begins 'Notwithstanding section 26 of the Magistrates Ordinance', is directed to non-indictable (summary) offences and does not impose a time limit…

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. TAM TAK CHI

HKSAR v. TAM TAK CHI

HKSAR v. CHEUNG CHI MING

HKSAR v. TAM KA KUI

HKSAR v. POON NGOK MING

HKSAR v. MAK WAI HON

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