Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Magistrates' procedure

Legal area

Court

27 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA85/2013

Appeals dismissed. For summonses withdrawn on 14 January 2013 the magistrate did not err in awarding costs because the prosecution was unprepared and failed to provide summaries of facts or evidence on which to oppose costs; for summonses withdrawn on 18 February 2013 the magistrate erred in procedure by failing to apply Lam Chiu Fong and by relying on prior awards, but on the merits the respondents had not demonstrated they had 'brought suspicion on themselves' given legitimate reasons for withdrawal (lapse of time, roles, likely penalty) and insufficient positive evidence of wrongdoing, the…
5 Nov 2002

HKSAR v. YI MEI LING

Citation

HKSAR v. YI MEI LING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA569/2002

The court found the guilty plea was unequivocal and voluntary, the inducement allegation and late-produced permit were not credible or sufficiently proven, fresh evidence was inadmissible under s.83V CPO, and the 15 month sentence conformed to sentencing guidelines; appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
27 May 1993

THE QUEEN v. LI YUEN CHU

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LI YUEN CHU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA331/1993

The appeal is allowed because the magistrate failed to enquire into the allegation that Immigration Officers misrepresented the likely sentence, which could have induced the guilty plea; therefore conviction is quashed, sentence set aside and the matter remitted to a magistrate (not the original magistrate) to investigate the basis for withdrawal of the plea and proceed as appropriate.
4 May 1989

LORRAIN ESME OSMAN v. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

LORRAIN ESME OSMAN v. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV21/1989

Although receiving an information is a ministerial act, the magistrate's attendance at the Attorney General's Chambers combined with retention of the case documents by ICAC and the secrecy of the procedure created a real likelihood of apparent bias; as a result the issue of the warrant on 30 November 1985 was vitiated and must be quashed by certiorari, while the declaration regarding the laying of the information was refused because reception of an information is ministerial.
2 Sept 1987

THE QUEEN v. JACQUELINE HAMILTON

Citation

THE QUEEN v. JACQUELINE HAMILTON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA581/1987

The omission of the essential element 'with intent to avoid payment' from the particulars was a material defect because the offence requires a specific intent to permanently avoid payment; the magistrate failed to exercise the mandatory power under s.27 to amend the charge and, being apparently unaware of the required specific intent, could not have properly determined guilt on that element; accordingly the conviction was unsafe and must be quashed and a retrial ordered.
27 Oct 1978

LEE FU YUEN AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LEE FU YUEN AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC862/1978

Regulation 63(1) of the Miscellaneous Licences Regulations is not an absolute offence; mens rea is a necessary element. Because the appellants' pleas were equivocal in light of mitigation asserting lack of knowledge, the convictions given on guilty pleas were unsafe and the trials amounted to nullities; convictions are quashed and cases are remitted to the Magistrate for fresh trial with the court's opinion on mens rea provided.
18 Apr 1977

RE CHAN HUNG TO

Citation

RE CHAN HUNG TO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP122/1977

Although no definitive impropriety was proved, the court found that the applicant had been effectively deprived of his right to appeal and that his plea may have been vitiated by misunderstanding; certiorari is available where a plea is not deliberate or where there has been a breach of natural justice; accordingly the convictions and orders were quashed and the applicant returned to the position at the point the charge was altered so the magistrate may proceed afresh.
4 Jul 1975

LEE YUK-PO v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LEE YUK-PO v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC475/1975

The conviction was upheld because the evidence established the offence of obstruction under s.4A(1); the detained wooden carts must be returned to the appellant because no magistrate order for their disposal was made.
28 Jun 1974

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. ASIA ELECTRONICS COMPANY LIMITED

Citation

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. ASIA ELECTRONICS COMPANY LIMITED
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC334/1974

The door and doorway constituting the exit to Flat 2B are part of a 'means of escape in case of fire' within the meaning of reg.31(1); the magistrate erred in relying on the marginal note (prohibited by s.18(3) IGC Ordinance) and in treating the regulation as excluding ordinary egress; appeal allowed and question answered in favour of the prosecution.