Leung Kwok Yim v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 230/1980 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 10 April 1980 before Silke, J..
1. In both of these appeals the appellant failed to comply with the provisions of section 114(c)(i) of the Magistrates Ordinance CAP 227 in that they did not enter into a recognizance to prosecute their appeals within the statutory 10 days after the giving of notice of appeal - or at all.
Legal issues: Mandatory requirement to enter into recognizance
Outcome: Both appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to failure to comply with mandatory requirement to enter into recognizance.
|
CACC000230/1980
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (Appellate Jurisdiction) CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 236 OF 1980 -----------------
----------------- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (Appellate Jurisdiction) CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 230 OF 1980 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Silke, J. in Court Date of Judgment: 10 April 1980 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. In both of these appeals the appellant failed to comply with the provisions of section 114(c)(i) of the Magistrates Ordinance CAP 227 in that they did not enter into a recognizance to prosecute their appeals within the statutory 10 days after the giving of notice of appeal - or at all. 2. In Li Ka Shu v. The Queen [1964] H.K.L.R. 410 Blair-Kerr J. held that this requirement was mandatory and, at p. 413 said: -
and he cited as his authority Lam Kuen v. The Crown (1954) 38 H.K.L.R. 216 which in turn followed a decision of Gould J. in Criminal Appeal No. 32/47. 3. While a Magistrate has power to extend the period in which an appeal should be lodged under the provisions of s. 114(a) and s. 114A of the Ordinance, this power is not given by statute in respect of the time limit set for the entry into the recognizance. 4. In the event I held myself to be without jurisdiction to entertain these appeals and they were dismissed. 5. Before I leave the matter there is one point I should like to make. And it is this: in the second, and unrepresented, appeal there appears on the file the actual form of a recognizance properly typed out but which was not signed. 6. It is suggested, and I am aware how busy the staff of the Magistracies are, that when a person gives a proper notice of appeal he should be at the same time be given the recognizance form, typed or written out, so that he can, then and there, be made aware of the necessity of observing the mandatory requirements of s. 114(c)(i).
Representation: Mr. R.K. Sujanani (Robin J. Oliver) for appellant Mr. Moorfoot for Crown |