Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Aiding and abetting by omission

Legal area

Court

31 Jul 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1238
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA193/2019

The magistrate lawfully exercised her s.8 discretion to refuse to issue private summonses because the informations and subsequent submissions contained only bare allegations and no material prima facie evidence of the essential ingredients of the alleged offences; Article 10's guarantee of a public hearing does not apply to a magistrate's pre‑summons refusal; ss.21 and 22 cannot be invoked to compel production of CCTV prior to the institution of proceedings; service by notice‑board posting under s.115(4)(c) was valid in the circumstances; accordingly the appeals are dismissed.
31 Jul 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1238
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA192/2019

The magistrate correctly refused to issue the private summonses because the appellant failed to adduce any material establishing the essential ingredients of the alleged offences prima facie; therefore there was 'good cause' under s.8(1B)(b) to refuse; Article 10 does not require a public hearing for such pre‑charge applications; ss.21 and 22 do not permit ordering production of CCTV prior to issuance of a summons; no actual or apparent bias was shown.
31 Jul 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1238
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA195/2019

The magistrate properly exercised her discretion under s.8 of the Magistrates Ordinance to refuse to issue private summonses because the appellant produced only bare allegations without material establishing the essential ingredients of the alleged offences prima facie; Article 10 of the Bill of Rights did not require a public hearing for such interlocutory decisions; ss.21 and 22 cannot be used to compel CCTV before summonses are issued; substituted service under s.115(4)(c) was valid — appeals dismissed.
23 Feb 2016

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA28/2016

The magistrate had good cause to refuse the five applications because the materials lacked sufficient particulars and substance to establish the essential ingredients of the offences alleged; the acts alleged did not amount to attempting to pervert the course of public justice; contempt punishable by Magistrates' Courts is limited to contempts in the face of the court; and aiding and abetting by omission is not recognised as an offence. There was no evidence of bias and no breach of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. Accordingly the appeals were dismissed.
23 Feb 2016

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA30/2016

The magistrate had good cause to refuse the five applications because the material before him lacked sufficient particulars and substance to establish the essential elements of the alleged offences, the alleged acts did not amount to attempting to pervert the course of justice, contempt powers of the Magistrates' Courts are limited to contempts in the face of the court, and aiding and abetting by legal omission is not an offence known to law; accordingly there was no bias or Bill of Rights breach and the appeals are dismissed.
12 Nov 2015

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA443/2015

The magistrate's refusals to issue private summonses were upheld because the appellant's written submissions and audio did not disclose any criminal offence or prima facie case against the named individuals, the asserted concealment of CCTV and alleged perversion of justice were unsupported and inconsistent with the evidence, and the appellant's allegations of bias and breach of fair hearing were unsubstantiated.
12 Nov 2015

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA445/2015

The magistrate did not err in refusing to issue the private summonses because the appellant's allegations were unsupported by evidence and did not disclose any criminal offence or prima facie case; the magistrate properly exercised discretion in requesting particulars and reviewing the material and there was no substantiated bias or breach of the Bill of Rights warranting interference.
12 Nov 2015

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA444/2015

The magistrate correctly refused to issue private summonses because the appellant's particulars and materials did not disclose any criminal offence or prima facie case; the available CCTV and audio evidence did not corroborate the allegations and there was no demonstrated bias or breach of the right to a fair hearing.
11 Apr 2013

香港特別行政區訴張建忠

Citation

香港特別行政區訴張建忠
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA37/2013

The magistrate's refusal to issue summonses was correct because the evidence was insufficient to infer that the second assault was intended to deter the applicant from being a witness (required for attempt to pervert the course of justice), and the security guard's mere failure to prevent the assault did not constitute assistance, encouragement or procurement absent evidence of knowledge, intent and positive acts; the statutory definition of 'security work' does not itself create criminal liability for omissions.