HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1997

R. v. LEE SIU KEUNG, EDMOND

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1994R. v. CHING WAI FAN, CARINA
  • CAAR12/1994R. v. TUEN Shui Ming and Another
  • CAAR13/1993R. v. WONG SHU KAN
  • CAAR3/1993R. v. NG SHEUNG CHUN
  • CAAR3/1995R. v. YU YUN HEI
  • CAAR5/1993R. v. KWOK CHI KEUNG
  • CAAR5/1995R. v. LEUNG KWOK CHUNG
  • CAAR9/1995R. v. CHAN SIU YUN
  • CACC100/1993NG YUK HUNG and Others v. R.
  • CACC100/1995R. v. CHAN LAM
  • CACC100/1996R. v. LI CHI MING
  • CACC101/1994CHAN CHONG HEI v. R.
  • CACC10/1994TAM Shing-li v. R.
  • CACC10/1996R. v. AU YEUNG CHI MAN
  • CACC102/1993LEE WING ON v. R.
  • CACC102/1994R. v. CHEUNG KIN SHING and Others
  • CACC102/1995R. v. LAI FOR-SHUN and Another
  • CACC102/1996R. v. CHOI MAN HAY
  • CACC103/1994CHAN KWOK-HING v. R.
  • CACC103/1996R. v. FUNG CHI SHING and Another
32523-EN-1997-05-15

R. v. LEE SIU KEUNG, EDMOND

HTML content

HCMA000115/1997

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL No.115 OF 1997

____________________

 

BETWEEN
THE QUEENRespondent
AND
LEE SIU KEUNG, EDMONDAppellant

____________________

 

Coram: Hon Sears, J. in Court

Date of hearing: 15 May 1997

Date of judgment: 15 May 1997

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

 

1. Driving cases are normally issues of fact for the magistrate to decide. There are, however, a number of points which the appellant has very properly raised.

2. But from the notes of verdict, the magistrate made a site visit not in the presence of the appellant, nor indeed the prosecution. This is a material irregularity - magistrates are not permitted to acquire evidence which is not open to challenge by a defendant.

3. The Crown does not oppose this appeal which is therefore allowed.

(R.A.W. Sears)
Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr Joseph To, S.C.C., for Crown/Respondent

Appellant: in person