R v. MING PAO NEWSPAPER LTD AND OTHERS

R v. MING PAO NEWSPAPER LTD AND OTHERS

s30(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance is a lawfully prescribed, non‑vague restriction on free expression that is necessary to protect the reputations of suspects and the integrity of bribery investigations (thus protecting public order); the magistrate erred in concluding s30 was repealed and the provision is consistent with the Bill of Rights.

Citation
R v. MING PAO NEWSPAPER LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Appellant: THE QUEEN; 1st Respondent: MING PAO NEWSPAPER LTD.; 2nd Respondent: TUNG CHUEN CHEUK; 3rd Respondent: CHEUNG KIN BOR; 4th Respondent: FUNG SHING CHEUNG
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 July 1995
Case Number
HCMA514/1995
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (case Stated) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Constitutionality (appeal From High Court Pursuant to S118(1)(d) Magistrates Ordinance)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; magistrate erred; s30 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance has not been repealed and is consistent with the Bill of Rights
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Bill of Rights Article 16, Prevention of Bribery Ordinance S30, Disclosure Offences, Necessity/proportionality Test
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Freedom of Expression Bill of Rights Article 16 Prevention of Bribery Ordinance S30 Disclosure Offences Necessity/proportionality Test

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

Parties

THE QUEEN

Appellant

MING PAO NEWSPAPER LTD.

1st Respondent

TUNG CHUEN CHEUK

2nd Respondent

CHEUNG KIN BOR

3rd Respondent

FUNG SHING CHEUNG

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (case Stated) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Constitutionality (appeal From High Court Pursuant to S118(1)(d) Magistrates Ordinance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s30(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance is inconsistent with Article 16(2)-(3) of the Bill of Rights
  2. 2 Whether s30(1) fails the 'provided by law' requirement or is too vague for foreseeability
  3. 3 Whether s30(1) is necessary for protection of rights/reputations and for protection of public order

Ratio Decidendi

s30(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance is a lawfully prescribed, non‑vague restriction on free expression that is necessary to protect the reputations of suspects and the integrity of bribery investigations (thus protecting public order); the magistrate erred in concluding s30 was repealed and the provision is consistent with the Bill of Rights.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; magistrate erred; s30 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance has not been repealed and is consistent with the Bill of Rights

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Question in case stated answered: Yes, the magistrate erred and s30 is not repealed