Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Hksar v Asim Nadeem

Judgment Cited authorities 2 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date09 February 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] HKDC 166
Year2018
Judgement NumberDCCC173/2017
Subject MatterCriminal Case
CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
DCCC173/2017 HKSAR v. ASIM NADEEM

DCCC 173/2017

[2018] HKDC 166

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 173 OF 2017

____________

HKSAR
v
ASIM NADEEM (D4)

____________

Before: HH Judge Dufton
Date: 9 February 2018
Present: Mr Michael Arthur, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Khawaja Muhammad Kamran, surety for D4

RULING

1. On 4 October 2016 a magistrate granted bail to Asim Nadeem (D4), a Form 8 holder. Bail conditions included the payment of $50,000 cash bail and a cash surety in the sum of $50,000. Mr Khawaja Muhammad Kamran, who was approved as the surety, deposited the sum of $50,000 on the same day. Other bail conditions included daily reporting to a police station between 6-9 p.m.

2. Bail was last extended on 21 August 2017 with the next court hearing on 22 January 2018. Mr Khawaja signed agreeing to continue acting as a surety for D4. D4 failed to attend on 22 January, the first day of his trial.

3. Mr Arthur informed the court that D4 last reported to the police station on 14 November 2017 and that the police visited his address but were unable to locate him.

4. The trial was adjourned to 24 January 2018. D4 and the surety failed to attend court on 24 January. Mr Arthur informed the court D4 last reported to the Immigration Department on 6 November 2017 having failed to report on 4 December 2017.

5. A warrant was issued for the arrest of D4. The 7 February was fixed for the surety to show cause why his recognizance should not be forfeited. The trial of the remaining defendants was further adjourned to 29 January 2018.

6. After the hearing on 24 January the Urdu interpreter informed the court clerk that he had seen the surety on 22 January. Regrettably this was not brought to my attention on that day.

7. On 29 January D4 did not appear and had not been located by the police. Mr Khawaja attended court. I explained to Mr Khawaja the procedure regarding forfeiture of the $50,000 taken as surety for D4 and asked if he wished to seek legal advice. Mr Khawaja asked for 1-2 weeks to seek legal advice. I adjourned the hearing to 7 February.

8. On 7 February Mr Khawaja informed the court he had not sought legal advice but had spoken to a friend who helped him write a letter, the contents of which I have considered[1]. Mr Khawaja said he did not require any further time to seek legal advice.

9. Where a person admitted to bail fails, without reasonable cause, to surrender to custody as shall have been appointed, a court may order that the whole or part of any recognizance of bail taken from a surety and any sum of money deposited for the purpose of securing his surrender to custody shall be forfeited to the Government[2].

10. As of 7 February D4 had not been located by the police. I am satisfied D4 has shown a clear intention not to attend his trial and had no reasonable excuse for not attending. I therefore order his cash bail of $50,000 be forfeited.

11. The provision of a surety is for the purpose of securing the surrender of a defendant to custody as the court may appoint. The starting point on the failure to bring a defendant to court is the forfeiture of the full amount paid by the surety unless it appears fair and just that a lesser...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT