12 Feb 2009
Where a jury determines under s75 that an accused is unfit to be tried, section 75A contemplates that the same jury will determine whether the accused did the acts charged; ss75 and 75A must be read together and do not require empanelling a separate jury in Hong Kong as the English statute does, so no material irregularity arose in using the same jury.
26 Jun 1995
s.76(1) CPO, read in context with s.75 and the Fourth Schedule and the Mental Health Ordinance, is not inconsistent with the Bill of Rights; mandatory admission under s.76(1) serves legitimate interests (assessment, treatment, and protecting public interest by enabling future trial) and is subject to MHO safeguards and discharge mechanisms, so permanent stay is inappropriate.
26 Jun 1995
Section 76(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance is not inconsistent with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights when construed in the context of s.75, the Fourth Schedule and the Mental Health Ordinance; mandatory referral under s.76(1) engages MHO safeguards and review mechanisms, does not constitute arbitrary or inhuman detention, and the court cannot judicially read in a discretion by striking 'shall'; therefore the application for a permanent stay is refused.