HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

Bail was refused because, despite lengthy pre-trial custody and evidence of good character, the seriousness of the allegations and the state and strength of the prosecution evidence created an unacceptable risk that the defendant would not attend court if released even under stringent conditions.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 306
Parties
Prosecution/respondent: HKSAR; 1st Defendant (co Accused): CHAN Yiu-shing; 2nd Defendant (co Accused): CHENG Wai-shing; 3rd Defendant / Applicant (seeking Bail): PENNELLI Rizzy; 4th Defendant (co Accused): WU Kai-fu; 5th Defendant (co Accused): MAN Ting-lock
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 February 2017
Case Number
HCCC41/2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conspiracy and Explosives Offences / Bail Application on First Day of Trial (hearing and Ruling)
Outcome
Application for bail refused
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Make Explosives, Possession of Explosives, Attempted Manufacture of Explosives, Pre Trial Detention, Delay in Custody, Risk of Absconding
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Bail Public Safety Statutory Offences Conspiracy to Make Explosives Possession of Explosives Attempted Manufacture of Explosives Pre Trial Detention +2 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution/respondent

CHAN Yiu-shing

1st Defendant (co Accused)

CHENG Wai-shing

2nd Defendant (co Accused)

PENNELLI Rizzy

3rd Defendant / Applicant (seeking Bail)

WU Kai-fu

4th Defendant (co Accused)

MAN Ting-lock

5th Defendant (co Accused)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Conspiracy and Explosives Offences / Bail Application on First Day of Trial (hearing and Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 3rd defendant should be admitted to bail during trial
  2. 2 Whether the seriousness and strength of the prosecution's case creates an unacceptable risk of non-attendance
  3. 3 Whether lengthy pre-trial custody favors bail

Ratio Decidendi

Bail was refused because, despite lengthy pre-trial custody and evidence of good character, the seriousness of the allegations and the state and strength of the prosecution evidence created an unacceptable risk that the defendant would not attend court if released even under stringent conditions.

Court Disposition

Application for bail refused

Orders

  • Application for bail refused
  • 3rd defendant remanded in custody