HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal2015

HKSAR v. CHRIS COTTON

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR11/1997HKSAR v. YIP CHI TUNG
  • CAAR1/1998HKSAR v. LING VERONICA
  • CAAR12/1996HKSAR v. WONG KWONG YICK
  • CAAR6/1998HKSAR v. LAU SHIU KONG AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR6/2012HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK CHI
  • CAAR9/2001HKSAR v. WONG TO LEUNG
  • CACC100/1997HKSAR v. YU HON CHUN
  • CACC100/1999HKSAR v. LAM CHI KIN
  • CACC100/2000HKSAR v. SHING KUEN KIN
  • CACC100/2001HKSAR v. OU YANG MING CHYUAN
  • CACC100/2002HKSAR v. CHAN LAI SING AND ANOTHER
  • CACC100/2003HKSAR v. CHENG CHONG SHING
  • CACC100/2022HKSAR v. LIMBU PRASHANT
  • CACC101/1997HKSAR v. YIU KENNETH LIK KIN
  • CACC101/2001HKSAR v. LEUNG KWAI PING
  • CACC101/2021HKSAR v. WONG CHI FUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/1997HKSAR v. MAN KAM SHING
  • CACC10/1998HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN TAK
  • CACC10/2001HKSAR v. TAM KWAI KEUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/2002HKSAR v. WONG WAN SHAN
99875-EN-2015-08-07

HKSAR v. CHRIS COTTON

HTML content

HCMA 152/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 152 OF 2015

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 4026 OF 2014 )

______________________

BETWEEN
 HKSARRespondent
and
 CHRIS COTTONAppellant

______________________

Before: Hon Zervos J in Court
Dates of Hearing: 22 April and 7 August 2015
Date of Judgment: 7 August 2015

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

1.  On 12 February 2015, the appellant was convicted after trial for the offences of criminal damage and common assault for which he was fined $4,000 and $1,000 respectively. 

2.  He filed a Notice of appeal and generally complained that the Magistrate erred in his findings in failing to take account of the fact that the appellant was seeking to arrest a suspected offender. 

3.  The Magistrate accepted that the appellant was chasing after a thief to recover his backpack, but concluded his actions by the force that he had used went beyond what was reasonable. 

4.  I have considered the Magistrate’s statement of findings and find no reason to interfere with the outcome of his decision. 

5.  The appellant has failed to attend today’s hearing and the previous hearing on 22 April 2015.  I am informed that the appellant left Hong Kong on 15 February 2015 and has not returned.  The police have made every effort to contact him, but to no avail. 

6.  It appears therefore that he is no longer in the jurisdiction and has not sought to pursue his appeal.  So, accordingly, I dismiss the appeal.

(Kevin Zervos)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Mr Prakash L Daryanani, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR

Appellant was not represented and did not appear