bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

sponsorType

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

SCMP Reporter

UP to half a million magistrates' summonses are sent out each year - and they may all be invalid, a High Court judge heard yesterday.

 Mr Justice Keith said the the matter could have ''enormous ramifications''.

 The question of whether summonses are properly issued and served had been raised by a magistrate.

 The judge said it would be better to have a more authoritative decision from the Court of Appeal and referred the case to the higher court.

  Before him was an appeal by the Crown against a magistrate's decision to dismiss a summons against a construction company on the grounds it was invalid.

  Jeevan Hingorani, for Hip Hing Construction Company, said the point had been raised by the magistrate, Li Zong-er, at Eastern Court in June.

   Mr Li dismissed the summons for failing to provide a safe passenger hoist for a site in Wan Chai and acquitted the company without hearing evidence.

   Yesterday, Senior Crown Counsel Kevin Browne said the case had not had the impact it might have had and he would have been more concerned if the result had been followed by other magistrates.

  The magistrate found the summons was invalid for two reasons - there was no evidence it had been issued by a magistrate or authorised officer of the court, and it was not signed and sealed.

  At issue is whether the information which formed the basis of the summons was laid within six months of the alleged offence and whether it was properly laid.

  The summons stated it was laid by a Labour Department official on December 15, 1992, but there was no other proof of when the information was supplied. The offence allegedly occurred on June 22, 1992.

 Mr Justice Keith heard summonses were issued by a computer at Eastern Court, but the Magistrates' Ordinance provides they should be issued by a magistrate or authorised person.



Summonses may be invalid