|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 1970 |
|
|
A military commander owed a duty to prevent foreseeable harm by soldiers; failure to control them amounted to negligence.
Tort — Negligence — Duty of care of commanding officer over soldiers — Foreseeability of harm from soldiers' misconduct — Vicarious liability — Dorset Yacht analogy — Reasonable person standard; res ipsa loquitur noted.
|
23 December 1970 |
|
An appellate court may not increase a magistrate’s sentence beyond the magistrate’s statutory jurisdiction.
Criminal law – Appeal – Sentence enhancement – Whether appellate court may impose a sentence exceeding the trial magistrate’s jurisdiction – Magistrate’s power to remit accused for sentence to higher court.
|
16 December 1970 |
| October 1970 |
|
|
Procedural failures—unclear consolidation, uncommunicated TICs, and failure to inform of appeal rights—rendered the convictions unsafe; retrial ordered.
Criminal procedure – consolidation of charges must be recorded – offences taken into account (TICs) must be fully explained to accused – duty to inform accused of right to appeal (s.197A(3)) – procedural irregularities rendering convictions unsafe.
|
18 October 1970 |
|
Failure to record a statutory finding for a juvenile renders a reformatory order a nullity and it is quashed.
Juvenile law – admission of guilt – mandatory recording of finding of guilty and order under s.66 Juveniles Ordinance – failure renders proceedings a nullity – reformatory order quashed; no retrial ordered due to delay and excessive sentence.
|
14 October 1970 |
| July 1970 |
|
|
Amending a charge mid-trial without re-pleading renders the trial a nullity; accused must be re-pleaded and warned of recall rights.
Criminal procedure – Amendment of charge during trial – Failure to obtain plea to amended charge – Trial without plea a nullity – Right to recall prosecution witnesses for cross-examination.
|
22 July 1970 |
| June 1970 |
|
|
Money seized but not retained in compliance with Regulation 35(3)(b) does not become State property; forfeiture improper.
Exchange control — Regulation 35(3)(b) — seizure and retention of money — statutory notice and refund obligation — non-compliance prevents money becoming State property — forfeiture inappropriate.
|
17 June 1970 |
| May 1970 |
|
|
Failure to produce an accused's exculpatory statements in recent possession cases can vitiate the conviction.
Criminal law – Recent possession – Explanation by person found in possession is crucial – Duty of police and prosecution to produce all statements taken from an accused, whether favourable or adverse – Omission may vitiate conviction.
|
13 May 1970 |
|
Non-disclosure of an accused's exculpatory police statement vitiates a conviction for recent possession.
Criminal law — Recent possession — Duty of police/prosecution to produce all statements taken from accused, including exculpatory statements; selective disclosure may render conviction unsafe; proviso inapplicable where nondisclosure misleads trial court.
|
13 May 1970 |
|
"Have regard to" in s.9(1)(a) requires adjustment, not mandatory full deduction, of statutory compensation from third-party damages.
Workmen's Compensation — s.9(1)(a) proviso "have regard to" — interpretation does not require literal deduction of whole statutory compensation from damages against third parties; distinction from s.8 (actions against employer); statutory minimums (s.59) may overcompensate — courts must adjust common-law awards to avoid double recovery; assessment and detailing of damages.
|
13 May 1970 |
| April 1970 |
|
|
If missing funds cannot be attributed to specific receipts, prosecution must not bring multiple overlapping deficiency charges.
Criminal law – Theft by public servant – Failure to account for multiple receipts – Where missing balance cannot be attributed to particular receipts a general deficiency is the proper charge; prosecution may not allege multiple overlapping deficiencies for the same period.
|
15 April 1970 |
|
Where multiple receipts form one accountable total and attribution is impossible, prosecution should charge a general deficiency, not overlapping counts.
Criminal law – theft by public servant – receipts of multiple sums forming a single accountable total – where attribution to particular receipts is impossible, charge a general deficiency; improper to charge overlapping general deficiencies for same period.
|
15 April 1970 |
| February 1970 |
|
|
Conviction under s.287 improper where goods were known stolen; substitution for theft or receiving was not permissible.
Criminal law – Possession of goods suspected to be stolen (s.287 Penal Code) – Inapplicable where goods are known to be stolen – Substitution of offences precluded by prior acquittal and lack of evidence for receiving.
|
25 February 1970 |
|
When facts disclose aggravated robbery, police must charge accordingly and magistrates must commit; sentence raised to three years.
Criminal law — Aggravated robbery — Police improper to lay lesser charge to secure subordinate court jurisdiction — Magistrate should convert to committal proceedings when facts disclose aggravated offence — Sentence substituted to statutory maximum for magistrate’s jurisdiction.
|
20 February 1970 |
|
Magistrates must convert plainly aggravated robbery cases to committal proceedings; police must not charge lesser offences to secure jurisdiction.
Criminal procedure – aggravated robbery clearly disclosed by facts – magistrate must convert to committal proceedings; police must not prefer lesser charges to obtain jurisdiction; sentence substituted for inadequacy.
|
20 February 1970 |
| January 1970 |
|
|
Omission of the essential intent element from charge particulars renders conviction invalid and unrescuable on appeal.
Criminal law — Charge particulars — Omission of essential ingredient (intent to commit felony) — Charge discloses no offence — Defect material and incurable on appeal (Penal Code ss. 271, 352).
|
14 January 1970 |
|
An appellate court must follow prescribed procedure before admitting fresh evidence; late objections are barred where the State did not promptly object.
Criminal procedure – Appeals – Admission of fresh evidence on appeal – Proper procedure under s.305(1) Criminal Procedure Code – Affidavit and service on Attorney‑General with one‑week period for observations – appellate court must record reasons and take or direct evidence – failure to object promptly bars late complaint.
|
14 January 1970 |