Day 24: the second time of admission to the court hearings

In this morning, I woke up at 0620 and arrived office at 0830. After I had finished three cheese bun as my breakfast, I started my office task as usual. At 0929, I received a call from my “master”. At the beginning, I thought he was going to give me some instruction on my tasks. I was wrong – he invited me to one of the Magistrates’ Courts (裁判法院) again. Compare to last hearing experience, I can see much more this time.

Source: https://youth.clic.org.hk/tc/usefulInfo/Procedures-during-criminal-hearings/Normal-court-procedure-in-a-criminal-case/

When I arrived the court, it seems that the “Trial Hearing” (審訊) have just started, the prosecutor (主控官) read out all evidences involved and their code. After that, the judge (法官) asked if “defendant (被告)”, who actually is the representative of a company, admit the guilty. And the “defendant (被告)” declared P.N.G (Plea of not guilty). Therefore, the prosecutor summoned a key witness and made an examination on the witness.

After a lunch break, the lawyer of the “defendant (被告)” also made an examination on the witness. Finally, the DOJ made a decision – O.N.F.E (offering no further evidence).

O.N.F.E is similar to O.N.E (offering no evidence), the major difference is that O.N.F.E is a decision after examination of witness.

Offering No Evidence (O.N.E)
In proceedings before the magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court, the prosecution may offer no evidence at any stage before the close of its case. Leave of the court is not required, although in the Crown Court the judge has a discretion whether to accept the prosecution’s decision. Where no evidence is offered in the Crown Court, a verdict of not guilty is recorded and no further proceedings are possible for the offence unless the verdict is set aside under the procedure provided for in pt 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (see double jeopardy). Where the matter is before the magistrates’ court for trial, the charge is dismissed and cannot be revived in the future. If no evidence is offered prior to committal to the Crown Court for trial, the defendant is discharged (under s 6, Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980), but there is no bar to a future charge for the same offence.

Read More –

Offering No Evidence (O.N.E)

The prosecutor may offer no evidence in either magistrates’ court or Crown Court proceedings.

O.N.E in Magistrates’ court

In the magistrates’ court the effect of offering no evidence depends on the type of offence and whether the magistrates have accepted jurisdiction.

In a summary trial the prosecuting advocate may offer no evidence at any stage prior to evidence being heard. Where during the course of the prosecution case the prosecutor decides that the evidence cannot be relied upon and the prosecution should not seek a conviction they should call no further evidence and invite the court to acquit. Whilst it is the court’s decision on whether the evidence they have already heard is sufficient for the defendant to have a case to answer or not, in practice it is very unlikely that any magistrates’ court would not agree to acquit where the prosecution no longer sought a conviction. See R v Gordon (1993) 96 Cr App R 156 for the Court of Appeal’s decision where a similar situation arose in the Crown Court. Offering no evidence will result in the acquittal of the defendant. The same charge or charges cannot normally be re-instituted and prosecutors should take care to consider the impact of offering no evidence rather than discontinuing proceedings.

Of particular importance is that it also affects the victim’s position under the Victims’ Right to Review Scheme.

However, it is not always the case that offering no evidence (resulting in the case being dismissed) will prevent the re-institution of proceedings. See DPP v Jarman [2013] EWHC 4391 (Admin): where a case was dismissed under section 15 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (non-appearance of the prosecutor.) Held that this was not equivalent to an acquittal because (a) the case was summary only (and so section 27 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act did not apply) and (b) the defendant had never been in peril of conviction. See also R v JFJ supra.