HKSAR v. SADLER SIMON PETER AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. SADLER SIMON PETER AND OTHERS

The application was refused because the applicant failed to establish a sound reason to depart from the norm of in‑court testimony: the witness's claimed farming and caregiving difficulties were not proven with sufficient diligence or evidence, alternatives (such as finding a sitter or other arrangements) were not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] HKDC 721
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; Defendant: SADLER SIMON PETER; Defendant: LA ROCCA JR DANIEL ANTHONY; Defendant: SEGANTII CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 April 2026
Case Number
DCCC731/2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal (insider Dealing) / Pre Trial Ruling on Remote Witness Application
Outcome
Application to permit Mr Psarianos to give evidence via live‑link from Australia refused.
Legal Topics
Insider Dealing, Remote Evidence, Witness Testimony, Courts (remote Hearing) Ordinance
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Securities Regulation Evidence Law Procedural Law Insider Dealing Remote Evidence Witness Testimony Courts (remote Hearing) Ordinance

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

SADLER SIMON PETER

Defendant

LA ROCCA JR DANIEL ANTHONY

Defendant

SEGANTII CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal (insider Dealing) / Pre Trial Ruling on Remote Witness Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the witness may give evidence via live-link under s.6 CRHO in an excluded criminal trial
  2. 2 Whether the witness has demonstrated a sound reason to depart from the norm of physical attendance
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution's application was timely and sufficiently diligent

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the applicant failed to establish a sound reason to depart from the norm of in‑court testimony: the witness's claimed farming and caregiving difficulties were not proven with sufficient diligence or evidence, alternatives (such as finding a sitter or other arrangements) were not shown to be impracticable, and the prosecution could not demonstrate that the proposed remote measures sufficiently preserved the solemnity and confrontation rights in this important and contested criminal trial.

Court Disposition

Application to permit Mr Psarianos to give evidence via live‑link from Australia refused.

Orders

  • Application under s.6 CRHO refused.
  • No separate costs order at this stage.