HKSAR v. CHU WAI MAN

HKSAR v. CHU WAI MAN

Application refused: the court found there were positive reasons to deny costs because D2's conduct and the absence of any indication of the defence (notably the identity of a third party, Ms Wong) during investigation, the voir dire and pre‑trial reviews misled the prosecution as to the nature of the defence; the voir dire costs were attributable to D2 and the court declined to award trial costs under s.5 CCCO.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1446
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 2nd Defendant: CHU Wai-man
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 July 2019
Case Number
HCCC24/2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Drug Trafficking / Post Trial Costs Application Under S.5 CCCO After Acquittal
Outcome
Application for costs under s.5 CCCO refused.
Legal Topics
Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance, Acquittal Costs, Voir Dire, Admissibility of Confessions, Discretion to Deny Costs
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Costs Evidence Procedure Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance Acquittal Costs Voir Dire Admissibility of Confessions +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

CHU Wai-man

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Drug Trafficking / Post Trial Costs Application Under S.5 CCCO After Acquittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether D2 entitled to costs under s.5 Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance following acquittal
  2. 2 Whether D2's conduct during investigation and trial disqualifies him from an award of costs (brought suspicion or misled prosecution)
  3. 3 Whether costs of the voir dire and the subsequent trial should both be awarded

Ratio Decidendi

Application refused: the court found there were positive reasons to deny costs because D2's conduct and the absence of any indication of the defence (notably the identity of a third party, Ms Wong) during investigation, the voir dire and pre‑trial reviews misled the prosecution as to the nature of the defence; the voir dire costs were attributable to D2 and the court declined to award trial costs under s.5 CCCO.

Court Disposition

Application for costs under s.5 CCCO refused.

Orders

  • D2's application for costs under s.5 Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance refused
  • Costs of this costs application awarded to HKSAR