香港特別行政區 訴 周健豪

香港特別行政區 訴 周健豪

Costs were refused because the judge found that the defendant's conduct—specifically receiving and wearing a gas mask and continuing to wear it while fleeing as police advanced—constituted self-attribution of suspicion connected to the charged offence and therefore amounted to a cogent reason to deny costs despite the acquittal.

Citation
[2022] HKDC 454
Parties
Prosecution: 香港特別行政區; Third Defendant: 周健豪
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 May 2022
Case Number
DCCC205/2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Riot / Costs Application After Acquittal
Outcome
Defendant acquitted and discharged; application for costs refused.
Legal Topics
Riot, Criminal Costs, Right to Silence, Acquittal
Source Language
CH
Criminal Law Procedure Costs Law Riot Criminal Costs Right to Silence Acquittal

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

香港特別行政區

Prosecution

周健豪

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Riot / Costs Application After Acquittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an acquitted defendant should be awarded costs under Cap 492
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's conduct amounted to self-attribution of suspicion sufficient to deprive costs
  3. 3 Whether exercise of right to silence and other conduct can justify refusal of costs

Ratio Decidendi

Costs were refused because the judge found that the defendant's conduct—specifically receiving and wearing a gas mask and continuing to wear it while fleeing as police advanced—constituted self-attribution of suspicion connected to the charged offence and therefore amounted to a cogent reason to deny costs despite the acquittal.

Court Disposition

Defendant acquitted and discharged; application for costs refused.

Orders

  • Third defendant acquitted and discharged
  • Costs application refused