Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Binding over

  • 18 Dec 2009

    HKSAR v. CHAN YUK YING

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHAN YUK YING
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA881/2009

    The court held the magistrate lawfully exercised s109I power: the appellant was given notice, received legal advice, clearly informed consent was obtained, the Brief Facts admitted the actus reus of theft and under Lau Wai Wo such conduct justified a binding‑over; therefore the binding‑over order for 12 months on recognizance $500 was properly made and the appeal was dismissed.

  • 4 Aug 2008

    HKSAR v. SINGH GURIAR

    Citation
    HKSAR v. SINGH GURIAR
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA641/2008

    The magistrate's sentence of 10 months was manifestly excessive for the offence of breaking a toilet bowl while in custody; the appropriate sentence for the offence after trial is 3 months imprisonment and the compensation order of HK$1,500 is to be confirmed. The court rejected the magistrate's characterisation that the act undermined law and order and held threats of further damage were irrelevant to sentencing for this offence.

  • 21 Apr 2004

    HKSAR v. LAM CHI ON

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LAM CHI ON
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA282/2004

    The magistrate acted within statutory and common law powers to bind over the acquitted appellant given evidence that she initiated an aggressive confrontation and there was a real apprehension of future breach of the peace; the appeal is dismissed but the certificate of order must be amended to specify the precise terms of the injunction to refrain from provoking and/or engaging in fighting in public.

  • 25 Sept 2003

    HKSAR v. LAI YUN KWAI AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LAI YUN KWAI AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA742/2003

    The Magistrate validly exercised his statutory power under s.109I to bind over the acquitted appellants given his findings that threats had been made and had alarmed the surveyor; there is no statutory duty to obtain or invite representations from the defendants before making such an order and, on the facts, the exercise of discretion was justified; therefore the binding over orders stand and the appeal fails.

  • 16 Apr 2003

    HKSAR v. TO HERMAN SINGH

    Citation
    HKSAR v. TO HERMAN SINGH
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1042/2002

    The Court held the conviction was supported by ample evidence and the four‑month custodial sentence was neither excessive nor wrong in principle in light of the appellant's record and behaviour; the appeal was dismissed, a warrant of arrest ordered and the cash bail estreated due to the appellant's dilatory conduct and absence.

  • 17 Mar 2003

    HKSAR v. LAU WAI WO

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LAU WAI WO
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA802/2002

    The magistrate was entitled under section 109I CPO to bind over the appellant in the absence of his consent; the applicable law follows the reasoning in R v Jude that consent is not a prerequisite where a defendant has come to court prepared to meet the case, so the appeal is dismissed.

  • 21 Nov 2000

    HKSAR v. LAI LAI WAH

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LAI LAI WAH
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA825/2000

    The appeal was allowed and the binding over order set aside because the Magistrate's adverse credibility finding premised on a persecutory delusion was not a matter for which the appellant or her solicitor had been given notice; in those circumstances the binding over order could not be regarded as safe or satisfactory.

  • 28 Jan 2000

    HKSAR v. WONG SUI KAM

    Citation
    HKSAR v. WONG SUI KAM
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1144/1999

    Because the trial magistrate did not address the appellant's clear criminal record when credibility was central and did not indicate consideration of that fact, the conviction could not be safely left to stand; accordingly the conviction was quashed, the sentence set aside, and the charge remitted for retrial before another magistrate or otherwise disposed of by agreement.

  • 19 Nov 1996

    R. v. PAN MAN LIN

    Citation
    R. v. PAN MAN LIN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP4003/1996

    Because the Crown offered no evidence, the first charge was dismissed for want of prosecution; the passport was established to be genuine and properly issued so the forfeiture order was set aside and the passport ordered returned; the offence concerning incorrect date/place of birth was technical and non‑dishonest and did not merit imprisonment, so the six month sentence was set aside and the appellant was bound over in lieu of imprisonment.