Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Warrant authentication

Legal area

Court

7 Aug 1992

CHO MING LOK v. THE GOVERNMENT OF UNITED STATES

Citation

CHO MING LOK v. THE GOVERNMENT OF UNITED STATES
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2980/1991

Magistrate erred by not analyzing charges and defendants separately and by treating multiple intertwined negotiations as a single conspiracy; the U.S. arrest warrants were properly authenticated; a concluded agreement is required for conspiracy and on the evidence there was no prima facie case of the charged conspiracy (Crime 3) against Cho, so Crime 3 must be quashed as to the applicants; joint committal procedure was irregular but not fatal to committal on the properly supported charges against Fung Chuen-kan.
7 Aug 1992

FUNG CHUEN KAN v. THE GOVERNMENT OF UNITED STATES

Citation

FUNG CHUEN KAN v. THE GOVERNMENT OF UNITED STATES
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2836/1991

Warrants of arrest from the U.S. were properly authenticated; the joint warrant of committal was procedurally improper but not fatal; there was no prima facie evidence of the specific conspiracy charged as Crime 3 (agreement beyond negotiation) with respect to Cho and that count was quashed, whereas there was sufficient prima facie evidence to commit Fung Chuen Kan for Crimes 1 and 2.
21 Feb 1992

MAYURET TANKANCHOPHAT v. THE GOVERNMENT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Citation

MAYURET TANKANCHOPHAT v. THE GOVERNMENT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV114/1991

The Court held the warrants and accompanying documents were authenticated in a manner permitted by Article VII(5) of the Treaty and by Hong Kong law (Evidence Ordinance), the evidence before the magistrate was sufficient to justify committal for conspiracy to traffick, and therefore the habeas corpus application failed; the appeal was dismissed.
1 Nov 1991

RE CHOI SZE YUEN

Citation

RE CHOI SZE YUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2907/1991

The magistrate's committal was lawful because there was sufficient evidence of identity (sworn deposition plus photograph and judicial comparison) and sufficient evidence of an extraditable offence as provided by sworn US evidence; the sealed duplicate of the warrant constituted adequate authentication; questions as to statute of limitations under foreign law were for the requesting state and the magistrate was entitled to accept the US attorney's sworn statement that offences were not time‑barred; accordingly habeas corpus relief was refused.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHO MING LOK v. THE GOVERNMENT OF UNITED STATES

FUNG CHUEN KAN v. THE GOVERNMENT OF UNITED STATES

MAYURET TANKANCHOPHAT v. THE GOVERNMENT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

RE CHOI SZE YUEN