SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. S AND OTHERS

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. S AND OTHERS

The court held that a six-year disclosure period is reasonable and consistent with OSCO and that respondents must disclose the source of assets; to protect privilege the order was amended to prohibit use of disclosed material in criminal prosecutions except for perjury and to restrict use to these and confiscation proceedings; applications for release of funds were adjourned for further evidence.

Citation
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. S AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant: Secretary for Justice; 1st Respondent: S; 2nd Respondent: S; 3rd Respondent: C
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 December 2008
Case Number
HCMP2195/2008
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings Under Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (restraint/charging Order and Disclosure Application) / Interlocutory Application to Vary Disclosure and for Payment of Allowances; Hearing in Chambers; Parts Adjourned
Outcome
Order continued with amendments; disclosure period and source-disclosure requirement maintained; privilege protection tightened; return date vacated; applications for allowances adjourned.
Legal Topics
Restraint Order, Disclosure Order, Privilege Against Self Incrimination, Assessment of Proceeds of Crime, Source of Assets Disclosure
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Confiscation and Asset Recovery Evidence and Privilege Procedural/interlocutory Practice Restraint Order Disclosure Order Privilege Against Self Incrimination Assessment of Proceeds of Crime +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Secretary for Justice

Applicant

S

1st Respondent

S

2nd Respondent

C

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings Under Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (restraint/charging Order and Disclosure Application) / Interlocutory Application to Vary Disclosure and for Payment of Allowances; Hearing in Chambers; Parts Adjourned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disclosure period should be limited to 3 years or extend to 6 years
  2. 2 Whether respondents must disclose the source of assets revealed by disclosure
  3. 3 Extent of protection required for privilege against self-incrimination in disclosure orders

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a six-year disclosure period is reasonable and consistent with OSCO and that respondents must disclose the source of assets; to protect privilege the order was amended to prohibit use of disclosed material in criminal prosecutions except for perjury and to restrict use to these and confiscation proceedings; applications for release of funds were adjourned for further evidence.

Court Disposition

Order continued with amendments; disclosure period and source-disclosure requirement maintained; privilege protection tightened; return date vacated; applications for allowances adjourned.

Orders

  • Amendment to order: "(5) No disclosure made in compliance with this order shall be used as evidence against the Respondents in any criminal prosecution, except in proceedings under section 31 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200.", "(6) The information disclosed in compliance with this order shall not be used for any...
  • Order continued for 60 days from 12 December 2008.