HKSAR v. WONG SIU MAN

HKSAR v. WONG SIU MAN

Because the Magistrate accepted the appellant's truthful evidence that she did not know and had no reasonable grounds to believe the monies were proceeds of crime and there was insufficient evidence to justify an irresistible inference of knowledge or that she 'brought suspicion' upon herself, the refusal to award costs was unsupported by the evidence; the appellate court therefore allowed the appeal and ordered costs.

Citation
HKSAR v. WONG SIU MAN
Parties
Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: HKSAR
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 December 2007
Case Number
HCMA955/2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal of Costs in Court of First Instance
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order refusing costs rescinded; costs awarded to appellant
Legal Topics
Dealing With Proceeds of Crime, Costs Following Acquittal, Judicial Discretion on Costs, Knowledge and Reasonable Grounds to Suspect, Evidence Sufficiency for Inference of Guilt
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Procedural Law Costs Law Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance Dealing With Proceeds of Crime Costs Following Acquittal Judicial Discretion on Costs Knowledge and Reasonable Grounds to Suspect +1 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant

Appellant

HKSAR

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal of Costs in Court of First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Magistrate erred in refusing costs to an acquitted defendant
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's conduct (surrendering card and PIN and failing to act) was sufficient to 'bring suspicion' to justify refusal of costs
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient evidence to draw an irresistible inference that the appellant knew the funds were proceeds of an indictable offence

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Magistrate accepted the appellant's truthful evidence that she did not know and had no reasonable grounds to believe the monies were proceeds of crime and there was insufficient evidence to justify an irresistible inference of knowledge or that she 'brought suspicion' upon herself, the refusal to award costs was unsupported by the evidence; the appellate court therefore allowed the appeal and ordered costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order refusing costs rescinded; costs awarded to appellant

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Order refusing the appellant her costs of the trial rescinded