A v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER

A v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER

The court held that HKBOR 11(5) did not entitle the applicant to compensation because his conviction was quashed in the ordinary course of appeal and therefore was not a 'final decision' within the meaning of the provision; independently, the Deputy Solicitor General's refusal under the Ex Gratia Scheme was lawful...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 427
Parties
Applicant: A; 1st Respondent: Secretary for Justice; 2nd Respondent: Solicitor General; 3rd Respondent: Deputy Solicitor General (Policy Affairs)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 March 2020
Case Number
HCAL176/2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Judgment (court of First Instance, 11 March 2020)
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Wrongful Conviction, Ex Gratia Compensation, Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 11(5), Disclosure Obligations, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Reasons Challenge
Source Language
en
Human Rights Criminal Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Public Law Remedies Wrongful Conviction Ex Gratia Compensation Hong Kong Bill of Rights Article 11(5) +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Applicant

Secretary for Justice

1st Respondent

Solicitor General

2nd Respondent

Deputy Solicitor General (Policy Affairs)

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Judgment (court of First Instance, 11 March 2020)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant was entitled to compensation under HKBOR 11(5)
  2. 2 Meaning of "final decision" in HKBOR 11(5) and ICCPR 14(6)
  3. 3 Whether Deputy Solicitor General's refusal under the Ex Gratia Scheme was unlawful or Wednesbury unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that HKBOR 11(5) did not entitle the applicant to compensation because his conviction was quashed in the ordinary course of appeal and therefore was not a 'final decision' within the meaning of the provision; independently, the Deputy Solicitor General's refusal under the Ex Gratia Scheme was lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable because he permissibly considered the totality of materials and legitimately concluded there was serious doubt about the applicant's innocence; the judicial review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the Respondents, to be taxed if not agreed
  • Certificate for two counsel