HKSAR v. LEE MING TEE AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. LEE MING TEE AND ANOTHER

The Inspector acted ultra vires and abused his statutory powers by passing compulsorily obtained answers and documents obtained under s.145 to the police/prosecution without lawful gateway; that conduct violated the defendants' privilege against self-incrimination and Article 11(2)(g) (including derivative use protection), and when combined with orchestrated prejudicial publicity and prosecutorial delay rendered a fair trial impossible; therefore a permanent stay of proceedings is required.

Citation
HKSAR v. LEE MING TEE AND ANOTHER
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Defendant: Lee Ming Tee; 2nd Defendant: Tse Chu Fai, Ronald
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 July 2000
Case Number
HCCC191/1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conspiracy to Defraud and False Accounting / Pre Trial Application for Permanent Stay (ruling)
Outcome
Permanent stay granted
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Abuse of Process, Privilege Against Self Incrimination, Derivative Use Immunity, Prejudicial Publicity, Prosecutorial Delay, Companies Ordinance S.145
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Company Law Administrative Law Human Rights Evidence Law Stay of Proceedings Abuse of Process Privilege Against Self Incrimination +4 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

Lee Ming Tee

1st Defendant

Tse Chu Fai, Ronald

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Conspiracy to Defraud and False Accounting / Pre Trial Application for Permanent Stay (ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Company Inspector had express or implied authority under the Companies Ordinance to pass compulsorily obtained material to police/prosecution
  2. 2 Whether passing compelled answers and documents to prosecution violated privilege against self-incrimination and Article 11(2)(g) of the Bill of Rights (derivative use immunity)
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector acted ultra vires or abused his power and whether that invalidates prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector acted ultra vires and abused his statutory powers by passing compulsorily obtained answers and documents obtained under s.145 to the police/prosecution without lawful gateway; that conduct violated the defendants' privilege against self-incrimination and Article 11(2)(g) (including derivative use protection), and when combined with orchestrated prejudicial publicity and prosecutorial delay rendered a fair trial impossible; therefore a permanent stay of proceedings is required.

Court Disposition

Permanent stay granted

Orders

  • Criminal proceedings stayed permanently