12 Apr 2017
The magistrate lawfully refused to issue a summons because the application lacked particulars and admissible evidence to disclose a prima facie offence against the named person; there was no evidence of bias and no legal obligation to conduct an oral hearing or to order evidence disclosure for the applicant, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
23 Feb 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 alleged offences, the alleged acts did not constitute perverting the course of justice, contempt jurisdiction of Magistrates' Courts is limited to contempts in the face of the court and aiding by omission is not an offence known to law; there was no evidence of bias or breach of the Bill of Rights; appeals dismissed.
4 Feb 2016
The magistrate properly applied s8(1B)(b) of the Magistrates Ordinance and relevant authority, concluded the materials were insufficient to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and that contempt powers did not extend to the alleged conduct; therefore there was good cause to refuse issuance of the summonses and no evidence of bias or unfair hearing, so the appeals must be dismissed.
4 Feb 2016
The magistrate lawfully refused to issue the five private summonses because the material before him was insufficient in particulars and substance to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, and allegations of contempt outside the face of the court were not actionable in the Magistrates' Courts; there was no evidence of bias and no unfair hearing, therefore the appeals are dismissed.
1 Jun 2015
The magistrate lawfully exercised his statutory discretion under section 8 to determine the applications in chambers, applied the correct prima facie test (per Tsui Koon Wah), and correctly refused to issue summonses because the informations and accompanying two‑page document did not disclose any criminal offence or even a prima facie case; the appellant's fresh audio recording was inadmissible for lack of authentication; there was no breach of Article 10 or denial of a fair hearing. Appeals dismissed.