HKSAR v. RAHMAN MD SALIM AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. RAHMAN MD SALIM AND ANOTHER

The magistrate lawfully found the circumstances were highly suspicious and, given the appellants had been arrested and cautioned, properly had regard to their failure to proffer an explanation when deciding costs; there was no error of law or fact in the discretionary refusal of costs and the appellate court will...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2441
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Appellant: RAHMAN MD SALIM; 2nd Appellant: BADAL DAS
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 July 2022
Case Number
HCMA82/2022
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Against Refusal of Costs Following Acquittal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Removal Order, Taking Employment While Subject to Removal Order, Right to Silence, Costs After Acquittal, Appellate Review of Discretionary Orders
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Criminal Law Evidence Law Costs Law Removal Order Taking Employment While Subject to Removal Order Right to Silence Costs After Acquittal +1 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

RAHMAN MD SALIM

1st Appellant

BADAL DAS

2nd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Appeal Against Refusal of Costs Following Acquittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate erred in finding the appellants' observed actions were highly suspicious
  2. 2 Whether appellants' silence or failure to proffer an explanation justified refusal of costs
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate misapplied legal principles on costs and exercised discretion unlawfully

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate lawfully found the circumstances were highly suspicious and, given the appellants had been arrested and cautioned, properly had regard to their failure to proffer an explanation when deciding costs; there was no error of law or fact in the discretionary refusal of costs and the appellate court will not disturb that discretion, so the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Magistrate's refusal to award costs to the appellants is upheld