HKSAR v. Cheung Wing Che
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 678/2006 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 22 August 2006.
1. The Respondent conceded that the appeal ought to be allowed on the ground that the Deputy Special Magistrate had “stepped into the arena”. In my view, this concession was properly made. No doubt with the best intention, the Magistrate had indeed taken so active a part in the cross-examination of the Appellant as to have usurped the function of the prosecutor. In the result, the trial cannot be regarded as fair.
|
HCMA 678/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 678 OF 2006 (ON APPEAL FROM ESS 34628 OF 2005) ____________ BETWEEN
____________ Before: The Honourable Mrs Justice V. Bokhary in Court Date of Hearing: 22 August 2006 Date of Judgment: 22 August 2006 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ 1.The Respondent conceded that the appeal ought to be allowed on the ground that the Deputy Special Magistrate had “stepped into the arena”. In my view, this concession was properly made. No doubt with the best intention, the Magistrate had indeed taken so active a part in the cross-examination of the Appellant as to have usurped the function of the prosecutor. In the result, the trial cannot be regarded as fair. 2.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to quash the conviction.
The Appellant, in person Mr Raymond Cheng, GC of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent |