HKSAR v. CHEUNG TSZ WAN

HKSAR v. CHEUNG TSZ WAN

No order for further disclosure was made because the material before the court (police document) carried a real risk of implicitly revealing the informant's identity and the defence failed to show a factual basis that disclosure was necessary to establish innocence rather than speculative; informer privilege therefore prevailed subject to the continuing duty to disclose if circumstances change.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1936
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; Defendant: Cheung Tsz wan
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 August 2020
Case Number
HCCC391/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trafficking in a Dangerous Drug / Pre Trial Disclosure Ruling Before Trial at First Instance
Outcome
Court refused to order further disclosure; maintained informer privilege subject to exception and continuing disclosure obligations; reasons provided to parties only with publication embargo until trial conclusion.
Legal Topics
Disclosure Obligations, Informer Privilege, Duty to Disclose, Confession and Arrest Circumstances
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Law Procedure Disclosure Obligations Informer Privilege Duty to Disclose Confession and Arrest Circumstances

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

Cheung Tsz wan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trafficking in a Dangerous Drug / Pre Trial Disclosure Ruling Before Trial at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution must disclose police information about the source and circumstances of the information leading to the arrest
  2. 2 Whether informer privilege protects the requested information
  3. 3 Whether the defence has established the necessity exception (innocence at stake) to override informer privilege

Ratio Decidendi

No order for further disclosure was made because the material before the court (police document) carried a real risk of implicitly revealing the informant's identity and the defence failed to show a factual basis that disclosure was necessary to establish innocence rather than speculative; informer privilege therefore prevailed subject to the continuing duty to disclose if circumstances change.

Court Disposition

Court refused to order further disclosure; maintained informer privilege subject to exception and continuing disclosure obligations; reasons provided to parties only with publication embargo until trial conclusion.

Orders

  • This Reasons for Ruling shall be provided only to the parties including the defendant and shall not be handed to or made available to any other person without leave of the court.
  • Except for paragraph 5 of the Reasons for Ruling, no part of the content shall be disclosed or published (including on the internet) until conclusion of the trial at first instance.