HKSAR v. CHAN KWUN CHUNG

HKSAR v. CHAN KWUN CHUNG

Rejecting the Prosecution's joint enterprise argument after full argument did not amount to an 'improper' act under s17; given D2's failure to file a skeleton and adoptive participation, and the court leaving open an alternative 'building-block' route, it was not appropriate to order the Prosecution to pay costs; application dismissed.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 528
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 2nd Defendant: CHAN Kwun-chung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 March 2018
Case Number
HCCC437/2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Costs Under S17 Following Ruling on Admissibility of Co Defendant Evidence
Outcome
Application for costs dismissed; no order for the Prosecution to pay costs to the 2nd Defendant.
Legal Topics
Joint Criminal Enterprise, Admissibility of Co Defendant Evidence, Costs in Criminal Cases, Section 17 Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Costs Law Procedural Law Joint Criminal Enterprise Admissibility of Co Defendant Evidence Costs in Criminal Cases Section 17 Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

CHAN Kwun-chung

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application for Costs Under S17 Following Ruling on Admissibility of Co Defendant Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Prosecution's submission of joint criminal enterprise was an unnecessary or improper act under s17 CCCO
  2. 2 Whether delay in seeking costs affects entitlement
  3. 3 Whether lack of a skeleton argument from D2 affects assessment of any costs award

Ratio Decidendi

Rejecting the Prosecution's joint enterprise argument after full argument did not amount to an 'improper' act under s17; given D2's failure to file a skeleton and adoptive participation, and the court leaving open an alternative 'building-block' route, it was not appropriate to order the Prosecution to pay costs; application dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for costs dismissed; no order for the Prosecution to pay costs to the 2nd Defendant.

Orders

  • No order that the Prosecution pay costs to the 2nd Defendant.