Results.
16 judgments found.
|
|
|
| December 1965 |
|
|
Joinder of offences separated by a considerable time is improper; cumulative sentences for deliberate sexual offences were upheld.
-
Criminal procedure — Joinder of offences — Time separating commission of offences — Improper to join offences separated by considerable time; Sentencing — cumulative sentences for deliberate sexual offences; Statutory citation — correct section for rape is s.113, not s.114.
|
25 December 1965 |
| November 1965 |
|
|
A subordinate court may impose consecutive sentences totalling over three years if no single sentence exceeds three years.
-
Criminal Procedure Code ss.7(1), 14(1), 14(2) — subordinate courts — consecutive sentences on multiple counts — aggregate sentences and jurisdiction — aggregation only for confirmation.
|
25 November 1965 |
|
Extension of time to appeal refused where the proposed appeal showed no prospect of success.
-
Criminal procedure — extension of time to appeal — court will not grant considerable extension unless satisfied the appeal would probably succeed — merits assessment — prior convictions relevant.
|
16 November 1965 |
| October 1965 |
|
|
The appellants’ sentences quashed where magistrate and High Court sentenced them for an offence they had not been convicted of.
-
Court of Appeal jurisdiction — appeal against conviction — sentencing — conviction and sentence for wrong offence — s.14(3) Court of Appeal Ordinance — s.197A(1) Criminal Procedure Code — sentences quashed and matter remitted to subordinate court.
|
22 October 1965 |
|
A judge may change sentence on new material, but welfare reports must be evidence and counsel heard.
-
Criminal procedure — sentencing — judge may revise provisional decision on receipt of new material; welfare officer's report material to sentence must be introduced as evidence and be open to cross‑examination; where circumstances change after the accused's case, counsel must be given an opportunity to address the court; courts concerned with prison conditions only insofar as they affect suitability for particular treatment.
|
22 October 1965 |
| July 1965 |
|
|
Convictions cannot safely rest on confessions inadequately proved to be voluntary; trial within a trial must rule out inducement.
-
Criminal procedure — admissibility of confessions — trial within a trial required when voluntariness disputed — prosecution must prove voluntariness beyond reasonable doubt — prolonged or overbearing questioning can render confessions involuntary — series of confessions should be introduced chronologically — conviction unsafe if relied on wrongly admitted statements.
|
23 July 1965 |
| June 1965 |
|
|
An accused must prove a high-standard 'reasonable excuse' to avoid absolute liability for selling unwholesome food.
-
Criminal law — absolute liability; public health — sale of unwholesome food; section 79(1) Public Health Ordinance; 'reasonable excuse' defence; burden on accused; packaging not a defence.
|
26 June 1965 |
|
A High Court refusal to extend time for appeal is not appealable under section 13(1) of the Court of Appeal Ordinance.
-
Court of Appeal jurisdiction — Appealability of High Court refusal to extend time for appeal — Construction of s.13(1) Court of Appeal Ordinance — Application to extend time is not an appeal — Ralph v R applied.
|
16 June 1965 |
|
An appeal 'deemed dismissed' under rule 54(1) may be revived; deeming can create a rebuttable presumption and relief granted.
-
Civil procedure — Appeal revival — Effect of a statutory 'deeming' provision under Court of Appeal Rules — Rule 54(1) construed as creating a rebuttable presumption; appeal capable of being revived and extension of time granted; interplay with rule 67(3).
|
4 June 1965 |
| May 1965 |
|
|
'Reasonable provision' under the Inheritance Act is assessed objectively; a large estate justified increased maintenance for the appellant.
-
Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1938 — meaning of 'reasonable provision' — objective test — relevant factors (nett estate size, claimant’s capital/income, conduct, testator’s reasons) — appellate review of non-discretionary determinations — substitution of provision and costs from estate.
|
12 May 1965 |
|
Court held 'reasonable provision' under the Inheritance Act is assessed objectively and ordered further maintenance for the applicant.
-
Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1938 — 'reasonable provision' for dependants — objective test — relevant factors: size of nett estate, claimant's capital and income, conduct, testator's reasons — appellate review of non-discretionary orders.
|
12 May 1965 |
|
Reasonableness of mistaken belief is judged objectively; unlawful collective purpose attracts liability under section 22; appeals dismissed.
-
Criminal law — s.22 common intention — no express agreement required; "probable consequence" judged objectively. Criminal law — s.11 mistake of fact — accused must raise defence; prosecution must disprove beyond reasonable doubt; reasonableness judged by average member of modern society
-
Provocation — degree of force assessed objectively; belief in witchcraft not reasonable
-
Evidence — exclusion only when unfair prejudice outweighs probative value; hearsay admissible to prove that a statement was made. Judicial notice — courts may take notice of matters of common knowledge
|
6 May 1965 |
| April 1965 |
|
|
Appellate sentencing test: intervene only if wrong in principle, manifestly excessive, or exceptional circumstances exist.
-
Criminal law — sentencing review — appellate three-question test; family hardship not a mitigating factor; disparity relevant only for comparable offences; executive mercy and routine prison-administration changes are not proper grounds for reducing sentence.
|
15 April 1965 |
|
Licence suspension requires both failure to stop and to render assistance; suspension was ultra vires when only assistance omitted.
-
Road traffic — section 219(1) creates two offences (failure to stop; failure to render assistance) — Second Schedule uses 'and' so suspension applies only where both failures occur — penal statute strictly construed — licence suspension ultra vires where conviction was for assistance only.
|
13 April 1965 |
| February 1965 |
|
|
Appeal allowed: homicide charge should state date of death; reasonably possible alternative cause creates reasonable doubt.
-
Criminal procedure — homicide charges — date of death should be charged; Evidence — burden of proof — ‘reasonably possible’ alternative creates reasonable doubt; Evidence — lying by accused may reinforce credible evidence but cannot salvage discredited or unreliable evidence.
|
17 February 1965 |
| January 1965 |
|
|
A document containing material falsehoods that change its tenor can amount to forgery under the Penal Code.
-
Criminal law — Forgery — Penal Code provisions self-contained; reception of English law irrelevant; document that materially misstates facts may 'purport to be what in fact it is not' under s.310(a); materiality test; R v Riley applied as illustration.
|
21 January 1965 |