Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Preliminary inquiry

Legal area

Court

14 Mar 2023

HKSAR v. LCMB

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 692
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC8/2022

The court exercised its discretion in favour of the acquitted defendant and ordered that he be awarded his costs of the proceedings from the Kwun Tong Magistracy including the preliminary inquiry; the court declined to deprive the defendant of costs on the grounds advanced by the prosecution (including in relation to alibi notice and the stay/quash application) because the defendant's conduct did not justify deprivation and the prosecution's complaints did not establish serious prejudice or abuse warranting denial of costs.
1 Dec 2022

HKSAR v. LCMB

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3302
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC8/2022

The defects alleged (missing magistrate‑signed list and certain transmission formalities) were procedural and not fatal; the materials had been considered by the magistrate and exist or can be produced, so the committal was not a nullity; the defendant failed to prove on balance of probabilities that continuation would make a fair trial impossible or constitute an abuse of process; accordingly the indictment is not quashed and no stay is warranted.
2 Aug 2022

CHOW HANG TUNG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2225
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL401/2022

The court held that s87A(2) of the Magistrates Ordinance, read in context and against its legislative history and relevant authorities, imposes a mandatory duty on a magistrate to order that the reporting restrictions in s87A(1) shall not apply upon an application by the accused; the Principal Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to exercise a discretion and his decision refusing to lift the restrictions was ultra vires and was quashed; mandamus was ordered directing the magistrate to make the lifting order when the applicant next appears.
28 Apr 2003

CHAN TIT SHAU v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

CHAN TIT SHAU v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL206/2002

Given the comprehensive statutory framework, the limited and non‑decisive role of the magistrate at a preliminary inquiry, the restricted public reporting regime and the absence of unfairness in the circumstances, there is no basis to imply a statutory or general common law duty requiring magistrates to give reasons for committal decisions after a contested preliminary inquiry; failure to give reasons in this case did not render the decision illegal and the judicial review fails.
17 Oct 1984

RE ASIAWEEK LTD

Citation

RE ASIAWEEK LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2784/1984

Section 80 does not prima facie require preliminary inquiries to be in camera; the magistrate erred in excluding the press while admitting the public, that error was apparent on the face of the record and the order was one no magistrate properly directing himself could have made, therefore certiorari should issue to quash the order and remit the matter for hearing in open court.
30 Jan 1984

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. P H O\'DONNELL PERMANENT MAGISTRATE

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. P H O\'DONNELL PERMANENT MAGISTRATE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP198/1984

Commital proceedings commence as soon as an accused appears or is brought before a magistrate on an indictable charge; therefore section 79 applies at first appearance and a magistrate must exercise the remand power conferred by s.79 rather than rely on s.20, making the remand purportedly ordered under s.20 subject to certiorari.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. LCMB

HKSAR v. LCMB

CHOW HANG TUNG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

CHAN TIT SHAU v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

RE ASIAWEEK LTD

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. P H O\'DONNELL PERMANENT MAGISTRATE