Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Arraignment

Legal area

Court

9 Apr 2019

HKSAR v. YIM YU HANG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 566
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC149/2018

Section 16 discharge was unavailable because both defendants had already been arraigned and the amended indictment did not alter the relevant counts; the court must assess the sufficiency of evidence by reference to the committal bundle as filed, and on that material there was a prima facie case against both defendants; accordingly s.16 applications were dismissed and severance was refused, prejudice being manageable by agreed redactions and jury directions.
27 Apr 2018

HKSAR v. WALSH KENT ANDREW

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 921
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC368/2015

The application for a certificate was refused because the issue had become academic after the prosecution offered no evidence and the accused was acquitted; mootness is a strong factor against granting a certificate and the court will only exercise its discretion to hear academic appeals where a sufficiently great public interest justifies doing so.
26 Mar 2018

HKSAR v. WALSH KENT ANDREW

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 688
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC368/2015

The court held that statutory provisions (ss49 and 51A CPO) require the personal physical presence of a natural person accused at arraignment; s51A only applies after an accused has been arraigned in person; no exceptional or extenuating circumstances existed to excuse attendance; accordingly the application to be arraigned in absence or by video link was refused.
15 Dec 2017

HKSAR v. WALSH KENT ANDREW

Citation

HKSAR v. WALSH KENT ANDREW
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC368/2015

The court held that s49(1) CPO does not empower the court to dispense with the accused's personal attendance at arraignment and that the Live Television Link rules apply only to witnesses; accordingly arraignment without attendance or by television link is not permitted and the defence proposals were refused.
16 Aug 2013

HKSAR v. SHAHID

Citation

HKSAR v. SHAHID
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA168/2013

Charge 1 was defective as pleaded at arraignment because it omitted the essential mens rea element of intending to induce belief, so the guilty plea to that defective charge was a nullity; Charge 2 was mistranslated such that the element of inducing belief was not put and the standard of interpretation fell below constitutional requirements, rendering that plea a nullity; consequently both convictions quashed and sentences set aside.
29 Aug 1985

THE QUEEN v. LAM HON-CHEUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAM HON-CHEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC167/1985

Omission to complete arraignment before a voir dire does not nullify the voir dire or subsequent trial where the accused does not object and the omission is treated as waived; Criminal Procedure Ordinance s.4.9(2) is directory in effect and the trial judge's management of voir dire, leading questions without objection, and jury directions did not amount to material irregularity warranting leave to appeal.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. YIM YU HANG AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. WALSH KENT ANDREW

HKSAR v. WALSH KENT ANDREW

HKSAR v. WALSH KENT ANDREW

HKSAR v. SHAHID

THE QUEEN v. LAM HON-CHEUNG