HKSAR v. YIP WAI KING AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. YIP WAI KING AND OTHERS

The judge found on the full context of the evidence that A2's remarks did not bring suspicion sufficient to deny costs, noting he was not charged immediately and the remarks were insufficient basis for charge; therefore A2 was entitled to his trial costs and A1, A3 and A4 were entitled to theirs, all to be taxed if not agreed.

Citation
HKSAR v. YIP WAI KING AND OTHERS
Parties
Appellant: A1; Appellant: A2; Appellant: A3; Appellant: A4; Respondent: Respondent
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 March 2009
Case Number
HCMA427/2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (conspiracy Charges) / Ruling on Entitlement to Trial Costs After Acquittal on Appeal (costs Hearing)
Outcome
Court ordered that all four appellants be paid their trial costs; respondent's objection to A2's costs was overruled.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Costs, Judicial Discretion on Costs
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Anti Corruption Law Civil Procedure Costs Conspiracy Prevention of Bribery Ordinance Costs Judicial Discretion on Costs

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A1

Appellant

A2

Appellant

A3

Appellant

A4

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (conspiracy Charges) / Ruling on Entitlement to Trial Costs After Acquittal on Appeal (costs Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are entitled to the costs of the magistracy trial after being acquitted on appeal
  2. 2 Whether A2's statements about a $2,000 payment ('tea money') justified refusing him trial costs because they allegedly raised suspicion of bribery
  3. 3 Whether a reference to 'tea money' necessarily implies a corrupt purpose or requires contextual assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found on the full context of the evidence that A2's remarks did not bring suspicion sufficient to deny costs, noting he was not charged immediately and the remarks were insufficient basis for charge; therefore A2 was entitled to his trial costs and A1, A3 and A4 were entitled to theirs, all to be taxed if not agreed.

Court Disposition

Court ordered that all four appellants be paid their trial costs; respondent's objection to A2's costs was overruled.

Orders

  • A2 to be paid the costs of his trial, to be taxed if not agreed
  • By consent, A1, A3 and A4 have their costs of the trial, to be taxed if not agreed