刑事檢控科各律師/高級律政 - Department of Justice

More documents

Recommendations

Info

20 brought or an information laid commenced. In R v Yau Hing-ping and Another [1992] 1 HKCLR 188, Yang CJ held: The issue here is when it was that the [prosecutor] first discovered the offence. In other words, when it was that he was informed of the offence. In R v Beaconsfield Justices, ex parte Johnson & Sons Limited (1985) 149 JP 535, Stuart-Smith J adopted the proposition of McNeill J in the unreported case of John Charles Brookes v Club Continental Limited, dated 13 October 1981, and held: I think it is sufficient for the purposes of this case, to say that the word ‘discover’ means no more in this context than that all the facts material to found the relevant charge under the Act were disclosed to the appropriate officer. The word ‘discovery’ here does not import any investigation by the officer. It is simply his knowledge, from disclosure to him in some way, of the material facts which would found the offence. It was argued that the word ‘discovery’ did not infer any investigation, and that Beaconsfield was therefore authority for the proposition that knowledge of the material facts should not be confused with confirmation of those facts and that the time started to run from a date when the prosecutor had no serious doubts as to the veracity of the complainant who had produced the relevant documents. It was held that at that time the prosecution had all the relevant and material facts in hand for time to commence to run; (2) In the present case, the original complaint was made prior to 2 November 1997 and thereafter interviews took place with the parties and relevant witnesses and with the Appellant himself. Trading histories were provided and the Appellant’s commission rebates had been provided. Some of the documents related to the dealings of Molly Li and to the Appellant’s clients. This detail was all included in a report provided under cover of a letter dated 22 October 1997 from the Assistant Director of Regulation at the SEHK to the Senior Director of Enforcement of the SFC. This report concluded that in the view of the SEHK, there was suspicion that Quest aided unregistered dealings by Molly Li. The Appellant then faced a charge of aiding and abetting unregistered dealings by Molly Li. By that time, therefore, the Appellant was suspected of the offence upon the basis of materials in the hands of the prosecuting authority rather more concrete than the claims of the original complainant. And it was from the delivery of the
21 letter dated 22 October 1997 to the Senior Director of Enforcement of the SFC that the Appellant argued that the period of one year within which the prosecution had to be brought commenced to run. That submission was correct; (3) In Morgans v Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] 1 WLR 968, Kennedy LJ stated: Mr Blackman contends that the words ‘sufficient in the opinion of the prosecutor to warrant the proceedings’ are merely descriptive of the evidence, and that the prosecutor would not have to form his opinion before time begins to run. I accept that submission because otherwise the prosecutor, in full possession of all relevant information, can prevent time from running simply by not applying his mind to the case. In the present case the prosecutor was in a position, upon receipt of the report from the SEHK, to apply his mind to the laying of charges and it was at that point that the period of one year commenced to run. Result - Appeal allowed. HKSAR v TANG Don-yuk 1999 931 * Sin Pui-ha # Mui Kwok-keung COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE HIGH COURT MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 931 OF 1999 Pang J Date of Hearing : 12 July 2000 Date of Judgment : 9 August 2000
Page 1 and 2: To : All Counsel/Senior Law Clerks/
Page 3 and 4: 3 INDEX A. p. 4 - p. 7 Hong Kong Co
Page 5 and 6: 5 consciously taken the potentially
Page 7 and 8: 7 other steps taken to prevent the
Page 9 and 10: 9 CA 200/2000 Leong, Wong & Keith J
Page 11 and 12: 11 A court ….. should think long
Page 13 and 14: 13 and his offer to plead to mansla
Page 15 and 16: 15 C. MAGISTRACY APPEALS/ AGAINST C
Page 17 and 18: 17 supermarket could be distinguish
Page 19: 19 Section 148A of the Ordinance pr
Page 23 and 24: 23 (3) [English digest of MA 9
Page 25 and 26: 25 keep them abreast of what he was
Page 27 and 28: 27 (1) R v Lennard [1973] 1 WLR 483
Page 29 and 30: 29 D. MAGISTRACY APPEALS/ AGAINST S
Page 31 and 32: 31 The facts showed that whilst the
Page 33 and 34: 33 (2) Although the magistrate did
Page 35 and 36: 35 (1) (2) 20 [English d
Page 37 and 38: 37 E. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE CA 87
Page 39 and 40: 39 F. COSTS IN CRIMINAL CASES HK

刑事檢控科各律師/高級律政 - Department of Justice

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?