THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHOY BING WING

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHOY BING WING

Recusal refused because the earlier case raised different issues from the present limited charging order application and therefore would not lead a well-informed reasonable observer to conclude the judge was biased; allegations of lack of independence were unsubstantiated and did not meet the threshold for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHOY BING WING
Parties
Judgment Creditor: Secretary for Justice (HKSAR); Judgment Debtor: Choy Bing Wing
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 January 2010
Case Number
HCMP129/2007
Procedural Posture
Charging Order Application and Recusal Application Arising in HCMP and Associated Appeals / Hearing and Ruling on Application for Recusal and Continuation to Hear Charging Order Application
Outcome
Application for recusal refused; judge proceeded to hear charging order application.
Legal Topics
Apparent Bias and Recusal, Restricted Application Order (grepe V Loam), Charging Order Nisi to Absolute
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Judicial Recusal Charging Orders Appellate Procedure Apparent Bias and Recusal Restricted Application Order (grepe V Loam) Charging Order Nisi to Absolute

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Secretary for Justice (HKSAR)

Judgment Creditor

Choy Bing Wing

Judgment Debtor

Procedural Posture

Charging Order Application and Recusal Application Arising in HCMP and Associated Appeals / Hearing and Ruling on Application for Recusal and Continuation to Hear Charging Order Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge should recuse for apparent bias based on a prior decision involving the same party
  2. 2 Whether the judge can be considered not independent due to alleged predisposition to act for a third party
  3. 3 Whether prior involvement in a different case disqualifies the judge from hearing a limited jurisdiction charging order application

Ratio Decidendi

Recusal refused because the earlier case raised different issues from the present limited charging order application and therefore would not lead a well-informed reasonable observer to conclude the judge was biased; allegations of lack of independence were unsubstantiated and did not meet the threshold for disqualification, so the judge properly continued to hear the application.

Court Disposition

Application for recusal refused; judge proceeded to hear charging order application.

Orders

  • Recusal application dismissed.
  • Hearing on charging order application to proceed; counsel for the Secretary for Justice to be heard first.