香港特別行政區 訴 梁荣策及另二人

香港特別行政區 訴 梁荣策及另二人

The judge exercised the statutory/common‑law discretion to refuse costs to each of the third, fourth and fifth defendants because their investigatory and pre-trial conduct—including deliberate misdescription of workers' identities and roles (third defendant), initial cooperation followed by refusal to provide documents and withdrawal of a drafted witness statement (fourth defendant), and active participation in arranging and prompting workers to return overpaid wages and giving false/misleading accounts (fifth defendant)—amounted to self‑inviting suspicion or materially misled investigators, and there was a close and direct nexus between that conduct and the charges such that the ordinary...

Citation
[2025] HKDC 1613
Parties
Prosecutor: 香港特別行政區; Defendant (第三被告): 梁荣策; Defendant (第四被告): 韓啓強; Defendant (第五被告): 蘇耀強
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 September 2025
Case Number
DCCC503/2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Post Trial Costs Application After Acquittal
Outcome
Applications for public-funded costs by the third, fourth and fifth defendants were refused.
Legal Topics
Costs Order, Self Inviting Suspicion, Right to Silence, On Cost Arrangements, Causation/nexus Between Conduct and Charges
Source Language
CH
Criminal Law Fraud Money Laundering Costs and Indemnity Evidence and Procedure Costs Order Self Inviting Suspicion Right to Silence +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

香港特別行政區

Prosecutor

梁荣策

Defendant (第三被告)

韓啓強

Defendant (第四被告)

蘇耀強

Defendant (第五被告)

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Post Trial Costs Application After Acquittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acquitted defendants are entitled to public-funded legal costs
  2. 2 Whether defendants' investigative or pre-trial conduct amounted to 'self-inviting suspicion' justifying denial of costs
  3. 3 What weight to give exercise of right to silence when assessing costs

Ratio Decidendi

The judge exercised the statutory/common‑law discretion to refuse costs to each of the third, fourth and fifth defendants because their investigatory and pre-trial conduct—including deliberate misdescription of workers' identities and roles (third defendant), initial cooperation followed by refusal to provide documents and withdrawal of a drafted witness statement (fourth defendant), and active participation in arranging and prompting workers to return overpaid wages and giving false/misleading accounts (fifth defendant)—amounted to self‑inviting suspicion or materially misled investigators, and there was a close and direct nexus between that conduct and the charges such that the ordinary...

Court Disposition

Applications for public-funded costs by the third, fourth and fifth defendants were refused.

Orders

  • Third defendant's application for costs refused
  • Fourth defendant's application for costs refused