HKSAR v. LIU SUN KONG AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. LIU SUN KONG AND ANOTHER

Where a magistrate has acquitted defendants because prosecution witnesses were not credible or their evidence had no significant weight, the magistrate cannot properly base a refusal of costs on that same evidence; in such circumstances the discretion should be exercised in favour of awarding costs. The appellate court set aside the magistrate's refusal and ordered costs for the appellants.

Citation
HKSAR v. LIU SUN KONG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Appellant: LIU SUN KONG; 2nd Appellant: LIU KA CHUN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 January 2003
Case Number
HCMA851/2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Court of First Instance (appellate Jurisdiction) Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order refusing costs set aside.
Legal Topics
Acquittal, Costs on Acquittal, Judicial Discretion, Credibility Findings, Magistrate's Exercise of Discretion
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Costs Evidence Judicial Review of Discretion Acquittal Costs on Acquittal Judicial Discretion Credibility Findings +1 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

LIU SUN KONG

1st Appellant

LIU KA CHUN

2nd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Court of First Instance (appellate Jurisdiction) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a magistrate properly exercised discretion in refusing costs following acquittal
  2. 2 What standard governs a magistrate's finding that a defendant brought suspicion upon himself
  3. 3 Whether an appellate court should interfere with a magistrate's discretion where the magistrate disbelieved prosecution witnesses but relied on their evidence to refuse costs

Ratio Decidendi

Where a magistrate has acquitted defendants because prosecution witnesses were not credible or their evidence had no significant weight, the magistrate cannot properly base a refusal of costs on that same evidence; in such circumstances the discretion should be exercised in favour of awarding costs. The appellate court set aside the magistrate's refusal and ordered costs for the appellants.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order refusing costs set aside.

Orders

  • Order refusing costs set aside
  • Each appellant to have their costs here and below, to be taxed if not agreed