Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Magistrate's duty to give reasons

  • 28 Oct 2008

    HKSAR v. LAI KAM WAI

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LAI KAM WAI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA538/2008

    A magistrate's failure to give oral reasons at the time of conviction does not automatically vitiate the conviction; where the conviction was pronounced publicly, counsel declined immediate salient reasons, a signed statement of findings is provided under s.114(b), and on rehearing the evidence is uncontradicted and the magistrate's credibility findings sustainable, the conviction is safe and the appeal must be dismissed.

    • Criminal intimidation
    • Reasons for verdict
    • Fair trial
    • Bill of rights public pronouncement
    • Iccpr article 14
    • Magistrate's duty to give reasons

  • 30 Jul 2008

    HKSAR v. OTIS ELEVATOR CO (HK) LTD

    Citation
    HKSAR v. OTIS ELEVATOR CO (HK) LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA154/2008

    The court declined certification of the first two points because the first was a factual determination and the second was an unraised, new issue and fell within prosecutorial discretion; it certified the third point for the Court of Final Appeal to determine whether magistrates must give oral reasons on conviction and whether HKSAR v Sin Chi Yin was correctly decided.

    • Definition of "construction site"
    • Choice of charging provision
    • Magistrate's duty to give reasons
    • Certification of points of law

  • 28 Feb 2002

    HKSAR v. RICHCO GARMENTS LTD. AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    HKSAR v. RICHCO GARMENTS LTD. AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA657/2001

    The Court allowed the appeals and quashed the convictions because, cumulatively, the equivocal letter of authorisation that could have induced the 2nd appellant, the unresolved and unreliable contemporaneous accounts of an alleged oral admission, the lengthy uncautioned period before the formal interview, the absence of adequate contemporaneous notebook entries and the long delay in preparing witness statements rendered the convictions unsafe.

    • Production notification
    • Furnishing false or misleading information
    • Admissibility of confession and record of interview
    • Expert evidence and lay opinion
    • Inducement and voluntariness
    • Credibility and evaluation of witness evidence

  • 19 Nov 2001

    LAY ENG TEO v. SUPERINTENDENT OF TAI LAM CENTRE FOR WOMEN & ANOTHER

    Citation
    LAY ENG TEO v. SUPERINTENDENT OF TAI LAM CENTRE FOR WOMEN & ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL540/2001

    The magistrate's committal was lawful because he was entitled to decide based on the authority to proceed and the totality of conduct shown on the supporting documents without giving detailed reasons or examining the foreign indictment for limitation/time-bar issues; the double criminality and money laundering descriptions were satisfied by the conduct-based approach in the US-Hong Kong Order and Hong Kong law permits liability via innocent agents.

    • Extradition procedure
    • Committal hearing
    • Habeas corpus
    • Double criminality
    • Time-bar/limitation
    • Magistrate's duty to give reasons

  • 31 Oct 1985

    THE QUEEN v. CHONG KAM-SAU

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHONG KAM-SAU
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA859/1985

    The conviction was set aside because the magistrate's written findings were inadequate: they failed to demonstrate evaluation of conflicting evidence or explain resolution of inconsistencies, leaving the appellate court unable to assess the correctness of the verdict, particularly where police interest and an independent child witness were relevant.

    • Findings of fact
    • Judicial reasoning
    • Credibility of witnesses
    • Appellate review
    • Magistrate's duty to give reasons

  • 7 Nov 1974

    LUI SANG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

    Citation
    LUI SANG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC777/1974

    Verdicts quashed because the magistrate failed to refer to and apply the statutory presumptions arising under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance and failed to make express findings whether each appellant had rebutted the onus when drugs were found in commonly used parts of the premises, rendering the convictions unsafe.

    • Possession (constructive and joint)
    • Statutory presumptions under dangerous drugs ordinance
    • Burden of proof and onus to rebut
    • Magistrate's duty to give reasons
    • Admissions/confessions