Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Summary offences

Legal area

Court

7 Oct 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN WAI FUNG

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN WAI FUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV125/2016

Leave to appeal refused because fresh leave applications were properly treated as fresh proceedings and validly granted; the lapse of earlier leave did not preclude filing fresh leave and fresh originating summonses; the 6-month Magistrates Ordinance limitation and statutory sentencing maxima could not be analogously imported to criminal committal proceedings for contempt; non-disclosure and legitimate expectation arguments lacked merit and the proposed appeals had no reasonable prospect of success.
7 Oct 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN AO TIEN

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN AO TIEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV128/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because there was no arguable prospect of success: fresh leave applications and fresh originating summonses were valid notwithstanding prior lapse (administrative case numbers immaterial); the 6-month time-bar in s26 Magistrates Ordinance does not analogously constrain committal for criminal contempt; non-disclosure of the prior lapse was not material on the facts; no legitimate expectation arose from magistrates' charging history.
7 Oct 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. SZETO TZE LONG JASON

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. SZETO TZE LONG JASON
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV73/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because (i) fresh leave applications and fresh originating summonses were valid notwithstanding lapse of earlier leave and administrative reuse of case numbers; (ii) there was no reasonable basis to analogously import the 6-month summary‑offence time‑bar or statutory sentencing limits to criminal contempt proceedings which protect the administration of justice; (iii) non-disclosure of the lapse was not material in the circumstances where the need for fresh leave and amendments was evident; and (iv) no legitimate expectation arose to preclude committal proceedings.…
7 Oct 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHEUNG KAI YIN

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHEUNG KAI YIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV69/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the court held there was no reasonable prospect of success: fresh leave applications were valid notwithstanding prior lapse; the 6-month time-bar for summary offences could not be analogously imported to criminal committal proceedings which engage the administration of justice and the court's inherent powers; non-disclosure of the prior lapse was not material in the circumstances; and no legitimate expectation relieved respondents from committal proceedings.
29 May 2015

HKSAR v. LEE SIU KEUNG EDMOND

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE SIU KEUNG EDMOND
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA572/2014

The magistrate did not err: the choice of Chinese for trial was a proper exercise of discretion; typographical/name/address defects were immaterial and the summons was validly amended and served; filing a notice under s7D is discretionary and not a prerequisite; interruptions did not prejudice the appellant; 'ride' includes riding a bicycle and 'foot-path' includes pavements; the appellant's claimed excuse of feeling unwell was rejected as not lawful; accordingly the conviction and fine were upheld.
21 Jul 2005

OWEN JOHN INGLIS v. LOH LAI KUEN EDA

Citation

OWEN JOHN INGLIS v. LOH LAI KUEN EDA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV341/2004

Section 18 of the Magistrates Ordinance permits a defendant in summary proceedings to appear by counsel and be deemed present unless an express statutory provision or bail/recognizance term requires actual personal attendance; none of the Part II provisions cited required physical presence, so the magistrate erred in refusing to proceed and in adjourning for the defendant's personal attendance; appeal dismissed.
14 Jun 2005

HKSAR v. CHAN PING KWAN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN PING KWAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA960/2004

The conviction was upheld because the offence under s.20(a) requires only basic mens rea — awareness of making the call and awareness that the message was menacing — therefore voluntary intoxication is not a defence and the magistrate's acceptance of the complainant's identification evidence provided sufficient proof of guilt.
14 Sept 2004

HKSAR v. YIU TSUI

Citation

HKSAR v. YIU TSUI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA260/2004

The Magistrate's factual findings—that the appellant remained stationary with a handcart occupying 2m by 1.2m after being warned and thus caused an obstruction—were supported by evidence and lawful application of the licence conditions; accordingly the conviction under section 4A was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
16 Apr 2003

HKSAR v. LO TAK HING AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LO TAK HING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA57/2003

The Magistrate properly assessed credibility, accepted the police evidence that the 2nd Appellant was hawking and that both appellants resisted police; the evidence, including photographs and seized items, supported the convictions; there was no demonstrable error of law or fact to overturn the convictions, therefore the appeals were dismissed.
16 Jul 2002

HKSAR v. FUNG KA KEUNG, CHRISTOPHER AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. FUNG KA KEUNG, CHRISTOPHER AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1014/2001

The court accepted the police evidence and video that adequate warnings were given and heard and that the appellants wilfully obstructed police in execution of their duty; accordingly convictions for obstruction of police were upheld. However the conviction under the summary offence for causing obstruction in a public place was unsafe because there was insufficient evidence that the appellants knew they were on public land and the magistrate failed to address that issue, so that conviction was quashed.