HKSAR v. TSE SUN WONG

HKSAR v. TSE SUN WONG

The magistrate had no valid positive reasons to refuse costs because her ex tempore remarks accepted defence possibilities that rebutted the presumption of employment, and her written findings that the appellant had brought suspicion on himself were unsupported and inconsistent; therefore the appeal is allowed and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HKSAR v. TSE SUN WONG
Parties
Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: Respondent
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 August 2009
Case Number
HCMA312/2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Immigration Offence / Appeal From Magistrate's Refusal of Costs After Acquittal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Employer of Illegal Workers, Costs on Acquittal, Section 17 I(1) Immigration Ordinance, Section 3(1)(c) Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance, Judicial Discretion on Costs, Credibility Findings
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Immigration Law Costs in Criminal Cases Employer of Illegal Workers Costs on Acquittal Section 17 I(1) Immigration Ordinance Section 3(1)(c) Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance Judicial Discretion on Costs +1 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Immigration Offence / Appeal From Magistrate's Refusal of Costs After Acquittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate erred in refusing costs after the appellant's acquittal
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's conduct had 'brought suspicion on himself' within the meaning of s 3(1)(c) of the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate's reasons and transcript were consistent with her factual findings on credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate had no valid positive reasons to refuse costs because her ex tempore remarks accepted defence possibilities that rebutted the presumption of employment, and her written findings that the appellant had brought suspicion on himself were unsupported and inconsistent; therefore the appeal is allowed and the appellant is entitled to costs, including costs of appeal, to be agreed or taxed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appellant to have his costs, including costs of appeal
  • Costs are to be agreed and, in default of agreement, to be taxed