Secretary for Justice v. Yip Sin Man
Read the full judgment text of HCMP 539/2022 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 2 August 2022.
1. On 6 May 2022, the Secretary for Justice as Plaintiff applied ex parte for leave to commence committal proceedings against the Defendant, in relation to her alleged breach of Court orders relating to what has been called doxxing of police officers. The relevant Court orders were made in October and November 2019, and the alleged breach by the Defendant occurred in September 2020.
Cites 2 cases
|
HCMP 539/2022 [2022] HKCFI 2382 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 539 OF 2022 ________________________
________________________ BETWEEN
________________________ Before: Hon Coleman J in Court Date of Hearing: 2 August 2022 Date of Ruling: 2 August 2022 ______________ R U L I N G ______________ A. Introduction 1.On 6 May 2022, the Secretary for Justice as Plaintiff applied ex parte for leave to commence committal proceedings against the Defendant, in relation to her alleged breach of Court orders relating to what has been called doxxing of police officers. The relevant Court orders were made in October and November 2019, and the alleged breach by the Defendant occurred in September 2020. 2.On 12 May 2022, I granted leave to apply for an order of committal. The originating summons was issued on the same date, together with a notice of appointment setting today as the first hearing. 3.The Defendant has failed to file any acknowledgement of service, so as to indicate her stance towards the proceedings. This is so, notwithstanding certain reminders. However, I am satisfied that the Defendant has been served with the papers in this matter, notwithstanding that she has failed to file any acknowledgement of service. B. Today’s Hearing 4.Indeed, it seems that the Defendant had intended to appear at this morning’s hearing. This is because she contacted the Court this morning to inform that she was unable to attend today because of a health issue, for which she will provide a medical certificate in due course. Mr Louie Chan, Senior Government Counsel (Ag.) acting for the Plaintiff this morning, has confirmed his understanding that the Defendant is still hospitalised. 5.The question then arises whether I should simply adjourn this matter to a further date, or proceed to give procedural directions. 6.Because the Defendant is not present, I have decided to reduce my reasoning and directions into writing. 7.After due consideration, and in the exercise of my case management discretion, I consider that it is appropriate to make procedural directions to bring this matter to a resolution, if necessary at a trial. I see no prejudice to the Defendant in proceeding in this manner, even though she is not present at this hearing in order to address the Court. 8.For the moment at least, I proceed (as I must) on the basis that the Defendant intends to contest these proceedings. Therefore, the procedural directions I shall make are to bring this matter to a trial. But should the Defendant later decide that she does not intend to contest liability, the matter can be dealt with on that basis. If liability for contempt is not denied, the first day fixed for the trial can stand as the hearing on mitigation and sentence. Should the Defendant decide not to contest liability for contempt before she files the directed affidavit/affirmation evidence, that evidence can contain those factual matters she wishes to put forward in mitigation. 9.Therefore, built into the directions I shall make is a provision for liberty to apply, under which the Defendant can notify the Court of any particular point or change of situation, and (if appropriate) request different case management directions. As always, I will deal with any application made under the liberty to apply provision, on its merits in the circumstances then pertaining. C. Directions Made 10.Accordingly, this morning, I make the following orders:
Mr Louie Chan, Senior Government Counsel (Ag.), of the Department of Justice, for the plaintiff The defendant was not represented and did not appear |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCMP 539/2022