HKSAR v. JAHANGIR ADIL AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. JAHANGIR ADIL AND ANOTHER

Although an acquitted defendant is normally entitled to costs, the court exercised its discretion to refuse costs because D1's behaviour during the investigation gave rise to suspicion and misled the prosecution into believing the case against him was stronger; moreover the prosecution had admissible s79C evidence and a positive identification parade forming a legitimate basis for proceeding, so positive reasons existed to deny costs.

Citation
[2026] HKDC 782
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Defendant: JAHANGIR ADIL; 2nd Defendant: TONG Fuhan
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 May 2026
Case Number
DCCC421/2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Costs Application (post Acquittal)
Outcome
Application for costs by 1st Defendant refused.
Legal Topics
Acquittal, Costs, Vulnerable Witness, Identification Parade, Withdrawal of Prosecution, Section 79 C Criminal Procedure Ordinance
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Costs Acquittal Vulnerable Witness Identification Parade Withdrawal of Prosecution Section 79 C Criminal Procedure Ordinance

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

JAHANGIR ADIL

1st Defendant

TONG Fuhan

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on Costs Application (post Acquittal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an acquitted defendant is entitled to an award of costs under the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's conduct during investigation can constitute a positive reason to refuse costs
  3. 3 Admissibility and effect of a vulnerable witness's video-recorded statement under s79C CPO

Ratio Decidendi

Although an acquitted defendant is normally entitled to costs, the court exercised its discretion to refuse costs because D1's behaviour during the investigation gave rise to suspicion and misled the prosecution into believing the case against him was stronger; moreover the prosecution had admissible s79C evidence and a positive identification parade forming a legitimate basis for proceeding, so positive reasons existed to deny costs.

Court Disposition

Application for costs by 1st Defendant refused.

Orders

  • Application for costs by the 1st Defendant is rejected; no order as to costs in his favour.