Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Remand

  • 24 Jun 2020

    香港特別行政區 訴 官心陽

    Citation
    [2020] HKCA 515
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC349/2019

    The court refused bail because there was no change in circumstances and the applicant failed to show a very high chance of success on appeal; the totality of evidence (room keycard, lengthy and repeated presence in the room(s), visible placement of substantial drugs and paraphernalia, absence of exculpatory testimony) justified the original inference of joint participation and made the appeal unlikely to succeed.

  • 16 Dec 2011

    HKSAR v. SU WEI

    Citation
    HKSAR v. SU WEI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2589/2011

    The judge substituted the magistrate's remand order under s9J CPO and granted unconditional bail for a three‑week period because there was no evidence the defendant was mentally incapacitated within the meaning of s51 MHO, s51 is confined to cases where observation, investigation and treatment for mental incapacity are required, the proper route for investigating the defendant's criminal motivation was a psychologist's report (organised by Social Welfare Department), and statutory considerations under s83Z CPO were addressed; costs were awarded to the applicant.

  • 28 Apr 2010

    HKSAR v. LO WAI FAI

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LO WAI FAI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA123/2010

    Although the offences were distinct and deterrence justified substantial punishment, the court reduced the aggregate sentence because the appellant swallowed the packets at the time of the first arrest and subsequent events were largely a consequence of that act; therefore partial concurrency better reflected overall criminality and proportionality, resulting in only 2 months of the second sentence to run consecutively and an aggregate of 18 months.

  • 2 Jun 2006

    WONG SHUN WAH AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR

    Citation
    WONG SHUN WAH AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACC13/2005

    The court admitted both appellants to bail pending arraignment on the same terms as their prior bail; the 1st appellant's application to reduce cash bail to $50,000 was refused because the asserted hardship was unsupported by evidence.

  • 12 Mar 1997

    R. v. NG WING WAI

    Citation
    R. v. NG WING WAI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA89/1997

    A custodial sentence and prolonged remand for a 14 year old selling pirated CDs was inappropriate in principle; the proper disposal was a non‑custodial probation order of 12 months, and procedural failures (failure to seek bail and delays in legal aid/counsel assignment) compounded the error.

  • 12 May 1988

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG CHI MING AND OTHERS

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG CHI MING AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA140/1988

    The High Court held that s.33(5) of the Public Order Ordinance must be construed to allow arrests, the issue of warrants and the remand in custody or on bail by a court even where the Attorney General's consent to prosecute has not yet been obtained, so that the Attorney General can be given reasonable time to consider consent; the Principal Magistrate erred in striking out prosecutions and in refusing adjournments and remands in the circumstances; the orders refusing adjournment and striking out the prosecutions were set aside and the cases remitted to the Principal Magistrate to be dealt wi…

  • 12 May 1988

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG CHI MING AND OTHERS

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. WONG CHI MING AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA141/1988

    Section 33(5) of the Public Order Ordinance must be read to permit arrest and judicial remand (in custody or on bail) pending the Attorney General's decision; the Magistrate erred in striking out the prosecutions and in refusing adjournments because she failed to exercise her discretion judicially; the High Court sets aside those orders and remits the cases to the Principal Magistrate to deal with each according to law.

  • 12 Oct 1987

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TRAN CHANH

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TRAN CHANH
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA825/1987

    A magistrate is not entitled to adopt a general rule refusing remands on first appearance; remand is a discretionary power which the Crown may seek to enable it to obtain legal advice on venue or forensic reports such as Government Chemist certificates, and striking out for want of prosecution under these circumstances was an unreasonable exercise of discretion. The appeals are allowed and the cases must be remitted for further proceedings depending on the Crown's election as to venue.

  • 12 Oct 1987

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. KO SHUM YIN

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. KO SHUM YIN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA820/1987

    The magistrate's blanket refusal to allow remands on first appearance and the consequent striking out of cases for want of prosecution was an unreasonable exercise of discretion; remands to obtain legal advice as to venue or to obtain Government Chemist's certificates are permissible and the cases must be remitted for further proceedings depending on the Crown's election.

  • 12 Oct 1987

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TSUI YIP KEI AND OTHERS

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TSUI YIP KEI AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA819/1987

    A magistrate's blanket refusal to grant remands on an accused's first appearance so as to force immediate pleas, transfers or committal dates is an unreasonable exercise of discretion; remands may be required to allow the Attorney General to assess venue and to obtain forensic certificates and thus the orders striking out for want of prosecution were wrongful and must be set aside and remitted for proper disposition.