Court Code

This is the Hon judges ruling on resentencing of the Defendant, he had been convicted by a jury of the murder of Santa Suarez Ramirez and was sentenced by the trial judge to a mandatory term of life imprisonment. He had been sentenced prior to the coming into force of the Parole of Prisoners (Amendment) Ordinance, which required him to be returned to court to be resentenced. 

The Defendant was before the Court for sentencing following his conviction for the offence of Indecent Assault contrary to section 49 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance.

This is the Hon Judge's judgment on resentencing of the Defendant, who was convicted by a jury of the murders of Yuneiry Veras and of Sorineida Arias. He was sentenced by the trial Judge to a mandatory term of life imprisonment on each count to run concurrently.

These are the Hon Judge's remarks on sentencing following the defendant's conviction by a jury for the offence of Assault by Penetration contrary to section 4(1)(A) of the Sexual Offences Ordinance No. 20 of 2020.

This is a ruling on an application asking for costs orders which were previously made in liquidation proceedings to not be enforced or to be set aside.

This is a ruling on the defendant's application to set aside default judgment in an amount to be assessed, and for unconditional leave to defend the claim. 

These are the Court's reasons for refusing to list an application for maintenance pending suit in favour of moving the matter forward for full ancillary relief hearing in divorce proceedings. 

There were 2 matters before the Court. The 1st was the Plaintiff’s hearing for the assessment of damages (against the 2nd Defendant) following an Order made in September [purportedly] striking out the 2nd Defendant’s defence and entering judgment on liability against the 2nd Defendant for non-compliance with an unless order. The 2nd was on the 2nd Defendant’s summons filed to set aside the September Order.