香港特別行政區 訴 李珮珊及另一人

香港特別行政區 訴 李珮珊及另一人

Although the right to silence is fundamental, the court will refuse costs where a defendant’s silence at investigation deprived the prosecution of explanations that later formed the basis of acquittal; here the court found objective documentary and institutional evidence (records, invoices, business‑unit awareness and acquiescence) already disclosed issues such that the defendants’ silence did not mislead the prosecution, and therefore awarding costs to both acquitted defendants was justified.

Citation
[2021] HKDC 825
Parties
Prosecution: 香港特別行政區; Second Defendant: 李珮珊; Third Defendant: 石曉風
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 July 2021
Case Number
DCCC892/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Costs Application Following Acquittal
Outcome
Costs application granted for the second and third defendants
Legal Topics
Forgery, Misconduct in Public Office, Fraud, Conspiracy to Defraud, Right to Silence, Costs Following Acquittal
Source Language
CH
Criminal Law Procedure Criminal Costs Forgery Misconduct in Public Office Fraud Conspiracy to Defraud Right to Silence +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

香港特別行政區

Prosecution

李珮珊

Second Defendant

石曉風

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Costs Application Following Acquittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acquitted defendants are entitled to legal costs
  2. 2 Whether exercise of the right to silence can justify refusal of costs
  3. 3 Whether defendants' conduct amounted to self-suspicion or misled the prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

Although the right to silence is fundamental, the court will refuse costs where a defendant’s silence at investigation deprived the prosecution of explanations that later formed the basis of acquittal; here the court found objective documentary and institutional evidence (records, invoices, business‑unit awareness and acquiescence) already disclosed issues such that the defendants’ silence did not mislead the prosecution, and therefore awarding costs to both acquitted defendants was justified.

Court Disposition

Costs application granted for the second and third defendants

Orders

  • The defendants’ applications for legal costs are allowed
  • If parties cannot agree the amount of costs, the matter is referred to the taxing officer/hearing officer for assessment