HKSAR v. CHEUNG CHI WING AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. CHEUNG CHI WING AND ANOTHER

The magistrate erred in law by misstating his basis for the no-case ruling, by relying on unproduced alibi material and on another defendant's admissions as if they were evidence against the appellants; because the acquittal stemmed from unsatisfactory identification evidence and the magistrate applied incorrect...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HKSAR v. CHEUNG CHI WING AND ANOTHER
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; Appellant: Cheung Chi Wing; Appellant: Unnamed Co-Appellant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 June 2005
Case Number
HCMA146/2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Magistrate's Costs Order / Court of First Instance Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; magistrate's order refusing costs set aside and substituted
Legal Topics
Identification Evidence, Alibi, Admissions Under Caution, No Case to Answer (galbraith), Turnbull Direction, Costs on Acquittal
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Evidence Procedure Costs Identification Evidence Alibi Admissions Under Caution No Case to Answer (galbraith) +2 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

Cheung Chi Wing

Appellant

Unnamed Co-Appellant

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Magistrate's Costs Order / Court of First Instance Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate erred in refusing costs to acquitted appellants
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate misapplied the Turnbull direction on identification evidence
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate misapplied Galbraith/no-case-to-answer principles

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate erred in law by misstating his basis for the no-case ruling, by relying on unproduced alibi material and on another defendant's admissions as if they were evidence against the appellants; because the acquittal stemmed from unsatisfactory identification evidence and the magistrate applied incorrect legal reasoning in refusing costs, the appellate court allowed the appeal and ordered costs for the appellants.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; magistrate's order refusing costs set aside and substituted

Orders

  • Magistrate's costs order set aside
  • Costs of the trial and of this appeal to the 1st and 2nd appellants (who were the 1st and 3rd defendants at trial)