HKSAR v. CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN) AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN) AND OTHERS

The application for a stay was refused because the exceptional threshold for staying criminal proceedings was not met: despite prolonged delay and witness memory issues the court concluded a fair trial remained possible, the prosecution case was sufficiently strong and important public interests in prosecuting serious economic offences outweighed the accused’s hardship; there was no demonstrated abuse of process that would render further trial oppressive or unjust.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3567
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Accused: Chen Keen (aka Jack Chen); 2nd Accused: Hao May (formerly Wang May Yan; aka May Wang); 3rd Accused: Yee Wenjie (also known as Yu Wenjie; aka Eric Yee)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 November 2021
Case Number
HCCC309/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Retrial/stay Application / Application for Stay of Proceedings Following Jury Discharge After Retrial Ordered by Court of Final Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay of proceedings refused; permission granted to proceed to a further trial on the present indictment
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Retrial, Abuse of Process, Delay/undue Delay, Conspiracy to Defraud, Money Laundering, Jury Discharge, Retrial Under S83 E Criminal Procedure Ordinance
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Procedural Law Constitutional Law Commercial/financial Crime Evidence Law Stay of Proceedings Retrial Abuse of Process +5 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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

Chen Keen (aka Jack Chen)

1st Accused

Hao May (formerly Wang May Yan; aka May Wang)

2nd Accused

Yee Wenjie (also known as Yu Wenjie; aka Eric Yee)

3rd Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Retrial/stay Application / Application for Stay of Proceedings Following Jury Discharge After Retrial Ordered by Court of Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a permanent stay of proceedings should be granted as an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether undue delay and prejudice to the accused render a fair trial impossible
  3. 3 Whether prosecution conduct (shifting case) justifies refusal to permit further trial

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a stay was refused because the exceptional threshold for staying criminal proceedings was not met: despite prolonged delay and witness memory issues the court concluded a fair trial remained possible, the prosecution case was sufficiently strong and important public interests in prosecuting serious economic offences outweighed the accused’s hardship; there was no demonstrated abuse of process that would render further trial oppressive or unjust.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of proceedings refused; permission granted to proceed to a further trial on the present indictment

Orders

  • Application for stay of proceedings refused
  • No stay of proceedings granted