16 Aug 1983
THE QUEEN v. CHAN TAK KWONG
- Citation
- THE QUEEN v. CHAN TAK KWONG
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC134/1983
Failure to record that statements were read back under s.82(3) did not render the committal void; s.82(3) is primarily evidential and directory in effect so non-compliance affects admissibility of the statement rather than the validity of the committal, and absent demonstrated prejudice the preliminary objection must be rejected; earlier authority (Queen v. Mok Chung) was incorrect and not followed.