HKSAR v. Dildar Husain RIZVI

HKSAR v. Dildar Husain RIZVI

The court held that an acquittal by virtue of section 51A carries the same entitlement to costs under section 73A as an acquittal after trial, but exercised its discretion to exclude costs occasioned by extradition proceedings because the applicant's conduct (avoiding return to Hong Kong, travelling to jurisdictions without extradition treaties, and refusing to give an explanation) brought suspicion upon him and rendered the extradition proceedings necessary; accordingly the prosecution must pay the applicant's taxed costs excluding work related to extradition and any work done prior to his arrival in Hong Kong consequent upon those proceedings.

Citation
HKSAR v. Dildar Husain RIZVI
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; Applicant/accused: Dildar Husain RIZVI
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 February 2007
Case Number
HCCC235/2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Charge of Publishing a False Statement Contrary to Section 21(1) Theft Ordinance Cap.210 / Post Acquittal Application for Costs After Prosecution Offered No Evidence Under Section 51 a
Outcome
Applicant acquitted; court ordered prosecution to pay applicant's taxed costs but excluded costs related to extradition proceedings and any work done prior to applicant's arrival in Hong Kong consequent upon those proceedings.
Legal Topics
Acquittal Under Section 51 a, Costs of Defence Under Section 73 a, Prosecutorial Discretion, Effect of Defendant Conduct on Costs, Extradition Costs
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Costs Law Extradition Law Acquittal Under Section 51 a Costs of Defence Under Section 73 a Prosecutorial Discretion Effect of Defendant Conduct on Costs +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

Dildar Husain RIZVI

Applicant/accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Charge of Publishing a False Statement Contrary to Section 21(1) Theft Ordinance Cap.210 / Post Acquittal Application for Costs After Prosecution Offered No Evidence Under Section 51 a

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an acquittal following a prosecutor offering no evidence under s.51A attracts an order for defence costs under s.73A
  2. 2 Whether costs related to extradition proceedings are includable in an award under s.73A
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's conduct (absence from jurisdiction, refusal to return, refusal to answer investigators) disentitles him to costs or to extradition costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that an acquittal by virtue of section 51A carries the same entitlement to costs under section 73A as an acquittal after trial, but exercised its discretion to exclude costs occasioned by extradition proceedings because the applicant's conduct (avoiding return to Hong Kong, travelling to jurisdictions without extradition treaties, and refusing to give an explanation) brought suspicion upon him and rendered the extradition proceedings necessary; accordingly the prosecution must pay the applicant's taxed costs excluding work related to extradition and any work done prior to his arrival in Hong Kong consequent upon those proceedings.

Court Disposition

Applicant acquitted; court ordered prosecution to pay applicant's taxed costs but excluded costs related to extradition proceedings and any work done prior to applicant's arrival in Hong Kong consequent upon those proceedings.

Orders

  • Prosecution to pay applicant's taxed costs; taxed costs to exclude any work done or services rendered in connection with or relating to the extradition proceedings or prior to the applicant's arrival in Hong Kong consequent upon those proceedings.