HKSAR v. YEUNG CHUN PONG AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. YEUNG CHUN PONG AND OTHERS

The plea of autrefois acquit fails because the Macao proceedings did not place the Accused in jeopardy for the Hong Kong offence alleged in the first charge: the Macao offence required an overt act and did not include the bank account (275-1-076-874) and time period alleged in the first Hong Kong charge; consequently the evidence necessary to secure a conviction on the Hong Kong charge would not have been sufficient to procure a conviction on the Macao charge. There is no evidence of prosecutorial mala fides or oppressive conduct warranting a stay; accordingly the prosecution of the first charge may proceed.

Citation
HKSAR v. YEUNG CHUN PONG AND OTHERS
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; Accused: YEUNG Chun-pong; Accused: TSE May-wah; Accused: TSE Kwai-ching; Accused: CHIK Kam-fai
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 August 2005
Case Number
DCCC438/2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling on Plea of Autrefois Acquit and Application to Stay Proceedings
Outcome
Plea of autrefois acquit dismissed; application to stay proceedings refused; prosecution of the first charge to proceed.
Legal Topics
Autrefois Acquit, Stay of Prosecution, Res Judicata, Foreign Acquittal Effect, Recognition of Foreign Judgments
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Double Jeopardy Abuse of Process Conspiracy Money Laundering Autrefois Acquit Stay of Prosecution Res Judicata +2 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

YEUNG Chun-pong

Accused

TSE May-wah

Accused

TSE Kwai-ching

Accused

CHIK Kam-fai

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling on Plea of Autrefois Acquit and Application to Stay Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Macao acquittal bars prosecution in Hong Kong under the doctrine of autrefois acquit or res judicata
  2. 2 Whether the Hong Kong conspiracy charges are the same or substantially the same as the offences tried in Macao
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution should be stayed as an abuse of process or oppressive conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The plea of autrefois acquit fails because the Macao proceedings did not place the Accused in jeopardy for the Hong Kong offence alleged in the first charge: the Macao offence required an overt act and did not include the bank account (275-1-076-874) and time period alleged in the first Hong Kong charge; consequently the evidence necessary to secure a conviction on the Hong Kong charge would not have been sufficient to procure a conviction on the Macao charge. There is no evidence of prosecutorial mala fides or oppressive conduct warranting a stay; accordingly the prosecution of the first charge may proceed.

Court Disposition

Plea of autrefois acquit dismissed; application to stay proceedings refused; prosecution of the first charge to proceed.

Orders

  • Plea of autrefois acquit dismissed
  • Application for stay of proceedings refused