HKSAR v. LEUNG WING KEUNG ALBERT

HKSAR v. LEUNG WING KEUNG ALBERT

The applicant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the LPP claims by JCL cause such serious prejudice that a fair trial is impossible; the defendant can give his own testimony and non‑privileged factual evidence about his state of mind and the technical assessment, so the available remedies are sufficient and a stay is not warranted.

Citation
[2023] HKDC 1616
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; Defendant / Applicant: LEUNG WING KEUNG ALBERT
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 November 2023
Case Number
DCCC1065/2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Stay of Proceedings (pre Trial)
Outcome
Application for permanent stay of proceedings refused.
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Abuse of Process, Legal Professional Privilege, Fair Trial, Disclosure
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Professional Privilege Stay of Proceedings Abuse of Process Legal Professional Privilege Fair Trial Disclosure

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

LEUNG WING KEUNG ALBERT

Defendant / Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application for Stay of Proceedings (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a permanent stay should be granted because a fair trial is impossible due to legal professional privilege (LPP) claims by JCL
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is so prejudiced by inability to adduce privileged communications that he cannot prove his state of mind or involvement in decision‑making
  3. 3 Whether the defendant can give sufficient non‑privileged evidence of his belief and reasons to enable a fair trial

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the LPP claims by JCL cause such serious prejudice that a fair trial is impossible; the defendant can give his own testimony and non‑privileged factual evidence about his state of mind and the technical assessment, so the available remedies are sufficient and a stay is not warranted.

Court Disposition

Application for permanent stay of proceedings refused.

Orders

  • Application for stay of proceedings dismissed