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

Hksar v Chow Ka Hey

Judgment Cited authorities 2 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date21 October 1999
Year1999
Judgement NumberHCMA642/1999
Subject MatterMagistracy Appeal
CourtHigh Court (Hong Kong)
HCMA000642/1999 HKSAR v. CHOW KA HEY

HCMA000642/1999

HCMA642/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 642 OF 1999

----------------------

BETWEEN
HKSAR Respondent
AND
CHOW KA HEY Appellant

-----------------------

Coram : Hon Woo J in Court

Date of Hearing : 21 October 1999

Date of Judgment : 21 October 1999

------------------

J U D G M E N T

-------------------

1. A complaint was laid against the Appellant before Mr Jenkins in the Magistrate's Court for her to be bound over. In the complaint, some facts were set out, apparently trying to justify the binding-over order.

2. When the Appellant appeared before the Magistrate, the Magistrate tried to put the facts in the complaint to her. From the record, it appeared that the Appellant did not agree to the facts put to her. When she was asked by the Court whether she agreed, she responded incoherently, and she also refused to be bound over although the Magistrate requested for her consent. She also, at one instance, said that she did not throw the fork at him (meaning the friend) who was, according to the facts in the complaint, her former boyfriend who refused to divorce his wife resulting in the relationship between him and the Appellant turning sour. That relationship was not put to her by the Magistrate and therefore she had no opportunity to respond. About one and half hours after her refusal to be bound over, she returned before the same Magistrate and then agreed to be bound over. In consequence, a binding-over order was made.

3. About 21 days later, she sought a review of the Magistrate's decision but the Magistrate refused her application. During the discourse between the Court and the Appellant upon that review, she was mentioning self-defence which did not specifically refer to any act of hers.

4. I was referred to R v South West London Magistrates' Court, ex.p. Brown & Others [1974] Crim.L.R. 313, for the point that : "... the material upon which the court could act did not have to be sworn evidence, but simply that it had to be such that when considered carefully and not capriciously, it justified the conclusion that there was a risk of a breach of the peace unless action was taken to prevent it."

5. In the case...

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