HKSAR v. LEE MING TEE

HKSAR v. LEE MING TEE

Non‑disclosure by the SFC of material bearing on the prosecution expert’s credibility, and the expert’s failure to disclose those matters coupled with the SFC’s preferential treatment of the expert, constituted a misuse of the prosecutorial apparatus that distorted the trial process and made continuation or a re‑trial unconscionable; a permanent stay of proceedings was therefore required.

Citation
HKSAR v. LEE MING TEE
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Defendant / Applicant: Lee Ming Tee; Regulatory Interested Party: Securities and Futures Commission
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 December 2002
Case Number
HCCC191/1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Chambers Application to Stay Proceedings; Permanent Stay Ordered
Outcome
Permanent stay of proceedings against the 1st Defendant (Lee Ming Tee) ordered
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Disclosure Obligations, Expert Witness Duties, Regulatory Investigation and Disclosure, Stay of Proceedings
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Administrative Law Securities Regulation Evidence Law Abuse of Process Disclosure Obligations Expert Witness Duties Regulatory Investigation and Disclosure +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

Lee Ming Tee

1st Defendant / Applicant

Securities and Futures Commission

Regulatory Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Chambers Application to Stay Proceedings; Permanent Stay Ordered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-disclosure by the SFC and by a prosecution expert (Meocre Li) of matters affecting his credibility constituted an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the SFC and other non‑prosecution bodies fall within the prosecutorial apparatus for disclosure duties
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution fulfilled its disclosure obligations and duty to inquire of relevant third parties

Ratio Decidendi

Non‑disclosure by the SFC of material bearing on the prosecution expert’s credibility, and the expert’s failure to disclose those matters coupled with the SFC’s preferential treatment of the expert, constituted a misuse of the prosecutorial apparatus that distorted the trial process and made continuation or a re‑trial unconscionable; a permanent stay of proceedings was therefore required.

Court Disposition

Permanent stay of proceedings against the 1st Defendant (Lee Ming Tee) ordered

Orders

  • Proceedings against the 1st Defendant permanently stayed