CB v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANOTHER

CB v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANOTHER

Court allowed the applicant to amend Form 86; declined to grant leave to apply for judicial review at this stage and adjourned the summons for leave; refused discovery for category 1 based on the officer's affirmation of non-existence of further documents; ordered discovery of categories 2 and 3 (written statements/VRI by the accused and unused prosecution materials) as relevant to whether BOR 4 duties were fulfilled, while leaving directions for further conduct to be determined.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3142
Parties
Applicant: CB; 1st Putative Respondent: Commissioner of Police; 2nd Putative Respondent: Secretary for Justice; Putative Interested Party: Secretary for Security
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 September 2021
Case Number
HCAL617/2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional/administrative Challenge) / Rolledup Hearing Converted to Directions Hearing for Amendment and Discovery (resumed Rolledup Hearing Adjourned)
Outcome
Amendment of Form 86 granted; 27/9 summons for leave adjourned and not granted now; discovery ordered for categories 2 and 3; discovery refused for category 1; further directions hearing to be listed; costs in the cause for the 27/9 summons.
Legal Topics
Victim Identification, Trafficking in Persons, Forced or Compulsory Labour, Duty of Candour, Discovery, Bill of Rights Ordinance Article 4
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Criminal Law Human Rights Law Victim Identification Trafficking in Persons Forced or Compulsory Labour Duty of Candour +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CB

Applicant

Commissioner of Police

1st Putative Respondent

Secretary for Justice

2nd Putative Respondent

Secretary for Security

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (constitutional/administrative Challenge) / Rolledup Hearing Converted to Directions Hearing for Amendment and Discovery (resumed Rolledup Hearing Adjourned)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted at this stage
  2. 2 Scope and applicability of the Government's duty of candour in a rolledup hearing
  3. 3 Scope of discovery against the police/prosecution in judicial review of victim identification decisions

Ratio Decidendi

Court allowed the applicant to amend Form 86; declined to grant leave to apply for judicial review at this stage and adjourned the summons for leave; refused discovery for category 1 based on the officer's affirmation of non-existence of further documents; ordered discovery of categories 2 and 3 (written statements/VRI by the accused and unused prosecution materials) as relevant to whether BOR 4 duties were fulfilled, while leaving directions for further conduct to be determined.

Court Disposition

Amendment of Form 86 granted; 27/9 summons for leave adjourned and not granted now; discovery ordered for categories 2 and 3; discovery refused for category 1; further directions hearing to be listed; costs in the cause for the 27/9 summons.

Orders

  • Leave to amend Form 86 granted as per draft attached to 16/9 Summons
  • 27/9 Summons for leave to apply for judicial review adjourned to be heard at the resumed rolledup hearing; costs in the cause