刑事檢控科各律師/高級律政 - Department of Justice

More documents

Recommendations

Info

22 - - - (i) (ii) (1) 14 (2) R v Pitt (1982) 75 Cr App R 254
23 (3) [English digest of MA 931/99 above] Pang J (9.8.2000) *Sin Pui-ha #Mui Kwok-keung TANG Don-yuk Husband testifying against wife /Whether warning to husband necessary/Whether husband compellable/Effect of witness summons issued to husband The Appellant was convicted after trial of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The victim was the husband of the Appellant. The Appellant appealed against conviction. Held : On appeal, it was submitted, inter alia, that: (i) under the common law a spouse of the accused could not be ‘forced’ to give evidence in a criminal proceeding against the other. The husband was served with a witness summons to attend court to give evidence. That meant that the husband was ‘forced’ to give evidence. It was a material irregularity; (ii) the magistrate failed to give a warning to the husband that he could elect not to give evidence, and the court could not ‘force’ him to testify. (1) The witness summons was issued in accordance with Form 14 of the Magistrates Ordinance. It required a witness to attend before a magistrate on a certain date to give evidence. Once a witness had attended court on a specified date, his duties under the witness summons were discharged. The witness summons did not require that a witness must give evidence before a magistrate; (2) In R v Pitt (1982) 75 Cr App R 254, it was held to be desirable that where a wife was called as a witness for the prosecution of her husband - she being a competent but not a compellable witness - the judge should explain to her, in the absence of the jury and before
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 and 20: 19 Section 148A of the Ordinance pr
Page 21: 21 letter dated 22 October 1997 to
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?