SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. NG WAI BING AND OTHERS

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. NG WAI BING AND OTHERS

The court found beyond reasonable doubt that 1st and 2nd respondents knowingly placed and maintained covert recording devices in a witness waiting room over an extended period and continued recording after obtaining corroborative material, conduct which was inherently likely to and did interfere with the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. NG WAI BING AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant: Secretary for Justice; 1st Respondent: NG Wai-bing; 2nd Respondent: WONG Man-chun; 3rd Respondent: YIU Muk-tak
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 October 2010
Case Number
HCMP840/2010
Procedural Posture
Committal for Contempt (application by Secretary for Justice) / Judgment on Liability Following Leave to Apply for Committal; Relisted for Penalty Submissions
Outcome
Application granted against 1st and 2nd respondents (contempt established); application dismissed against 3rd respondent (no criminal contempt established); matter relisted for submissions on penalty for 1st and 2nd respondents.
Legal Topics
Committal, Mens Rea for Contempt, Witness Tampering, Surreptitious Recording, Transcription and Facilitation
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Contempt of Court Evidence Procedure Committal Mens Rea for Contempt Witness Tampering Surreptitious Recording +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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Secretary for Justice

Applicant

NG Wai-bing

1st Respondent

WONG Man-chun

2nd Respondent

YIU Muk-tak

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Committal for Contempt (application by Secretary for Justice) / Judgment on Liability Following Leave to Apply for Committal; Relisted for Penalty Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether covert recording of conversations in a court witness room constitutes criminal contempt
  2. 2 What mens rea is required for criminal contempt (specific intent to interfere vs basic intent/knowledge)
  3. 3 Whether a third party who facilitates transcription can be held for contempt

Ratio Decidendi

The court found beyond reasonable doubt that 1st and 2nd respondents knowingly placed and maintained covert recording devices in a witness waiting room over an extended period and continued recording after obtaining corroborative material, conduct which was inherently likely to and did interfere with the administration of justice and public confidence; the 3rd respondent, who only facilitated transcription and lacked initial knowledge of the recordings' provenance and whose failings did not amount to active interference, was not guilty of criminal contempt.

Court Disposition

Application granted against 1st and 2nd respondents (contempt established); application dismissed against 3rd respondent (no criminal contempt established); matter relisted for submissions on penalty for 1st and 2nd respondents.

Orders

  • Findings of contempt entered against 1st and 2nd respondents for covertly recording conversations in the court witness room
  • Application dismissed as against 3rd respondent