香港特別行政區 訴 高卓梵

香港特別行政區 訴 高卓梵

Application for original‑trial costs was refused because there were two positive reasons to deny costs: (1) the appellant’s conduct objectively invited suspicion (receipt of a package containing drugs and drugs and paraphernalia found at home); and (2) the prosecution’s case had considerable strength and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCA 1746
Parties
Appellant: KO CHEUK FAN (高卓梵); Respondent: The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (香港特別行政區)
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 November 2022
Case Number
CACC19/2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Costs Application After Appeal Allowed and Remitted for Retrial
Outcome
Application for original‑trial costs refused
Legal Topics
Trial Costs, Legal Aid, Right to Silence, Retrial, Prosecutorial Conduct
Source Language
ch
Criminal Law Appeal Costs Evidence Trial Costs Legal Aid Right to Silence Retrial +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KO CHEUK FAN (高卓梵)

Appellant

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (香港特別行政區)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Costs Application After Appeal Allowed and Remitted for Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to an award of original‑trial costs under s9 Criminal Cases (Costs) Ordinance after his appeal was allowed and the case remitted for retrial
  2. 2 Whether there are positive reasons to refuse an award of original‑trial costs (e.g. self‑invitation of suspicion, strength of prosecution case, nature of prosecutorial errors)
  3. 3 Relevance of subsequent grant of legal aid for retrial to an award of original‑trial costs

Ratio Decidendi

Application for original‑trial costs was refused because there were two positive reasons to deny costs: (1) the appellant’s conduct objectively invited suspicion (receipt of a package containing drugs and drugs and paraphernalia found at home); and (2) the prosecution’s case had considerable strength and the trial/appellate errors were technical rather than demonstrating lack of prosecutorial merit; additionally the appellant had been granted legal aid for the retrial, removing the special financial burden considered in Chan Hing Kai (No.2).

Court Disposition

Application for original‑trial costs refused

Orders

  • Refuse the appellant’s application for original‑trial costs under s9 of the Criminal Cases (Costs) Ordinance (Cap. 492)