HKSAR v. LAI CHEE YING AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. LAI CHEE YING AND OTHERS

The court held the alleged conspiracy was a continuing offence whose limitation period ran from the last date pleaded (24 June 2021); a prosecution for limitation purposes is 'begun' when the information is laid at the magistracy (received 14 December 2021), and because the information was so laid within six months of 24 June 2021 the sedition count was not time‑barred; defence application dismissed.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 3337
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Defendant: LAI CHEE YING; 2nd Defendant: APPLE DAILY LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: APPLE DAILY PRINTING LIMITED; 4th Defendant: AD INTERNET LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 December 2023
Case Number
HCCC51/2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal: Conspiracy to Commit Sedition / Ruling on Time‑bar Application (pre‑trial/trial Commencement)
Outcome
Defence application dismissed; Count 1 not time‑barred
Legal Topics
Sedition, Conspiracy, Limitation Periods, Commencement of Prosecution, Laying of Information, Consent to Prosecute
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Statutory Interpretation Criminal Procedure Constitutional Law Sedition Conspiracy Limitation Periods Commencement of Prosecution +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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

LAI CHEE YING

1st Defendant

APPLE DAILY LIMITED

2nd Defendant

APPLE DAILY PRINTING LIMITED

3rd Defendant

AD INTERNET LIMITED

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal: Conspiracy to Commit Sedition / Ruling on Time‑bar Application (pre‑trial/trial Commencement)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Count 1 (conspiracy to commit sedition) is time‑barred under s.11(1) Crimes Ordinance read with s.159D
  2. 2 When the limitation period starts to run for a continuing conspiracy
  3. 3 Whether a prosecution is 'begun' or 'instituted' only when the accused first appears in court or when information is laid at the magistracy

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the alleged conspiracy was a continuing offence whose limitation period ran from the last date pleaded (24 June 2021); a prosecution for limitation purposes is 'begun' when the information is laid at the magistracy (received 14 December 2021), and because the information was so laid within six months of 24 June 2021 the sedition count was not time‑barred; defence application dismissed.

Court Disposition

Defence application dismissed; Count 1 not time‑barred

Orders

  • Application to stay/dismiss Count 1 for being time‑barred dismissed
  • Proceedings in relation to Count 1 to continue