appConfigEntityId

bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

isVideo

articlePageQuery

article

articleSchemaContent

content

hooksArticlePageAdvertisementConfigArticle

appConfig

filter

json

liveArticle

A court yesterday confirmed that people charged with minor offences such as speeding did not need to attend if they were represented at the court by a solicitor.

The Court of Appeal rejected an application by magistrate Eda Loh Lai-kuen to overturn a judicial review decision that said she was wrong not to accept a plea from a solicitor representing a businessman who had been caught speeding.

Chief Judge of the High Court Mr Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li   found that Justice Michael Hartmann  had been correct when he said the law and legal precedent allowed that defendants represented by able lawyers could be absent from court hearings for summary offences.

'Nothing in [the law] states that a defendant must appear in person. Accordingly, it seems to me ... that a defendant can appear by counsel,' Justice Ma said.

A summary offence is one for which the penalty does not exceed a fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for six months, with or without additional orders relating to the cancellation or suspension of licences or suchlike.

The matter arose from a case involving businessman Owen John Inglis. Mr Inglis was served with a summons in February 2003 for allegedly exceeding the speed limit by 16 km/h. The maximum penalty for the offence was a fine of $4,000.

On June 1 last year, a solicitor appeared for Mr Inglis, who was out of Hong Kong, to plead guilty to the speeding offence, but Ms Loh said a plea could not be taken in the absence of the defendant.

Mr Inglis then filed for a judicial review, asserting that the magistrate's decision was contrary to law and that his case ought to be heard by a different magistrate.

Much of the argument in the appeal centred on  the wording of sections 16 and 18 of the Magistrate's Ordinance.

Section 16 states that the accused 'shall be admitted to make his full answer and defence ... and to have the witnesses examined and cross-examined by him or by counsel on his behalf', while section 18 affirms the right to be represented by counsel and states that 'an absent party so represented shall be deemed not to be absent'.

Justice Ma found there was nothing in section 16 that necessitated the physical attendance at court of the accused, while section 18 indicated that, subject to certain conditions, counsel could appear on behalf of an accused person.



Court of Appeal  backs 'no shows' on minor offences