Hong Kong Case Law

律政司司長 訴 陸志榮

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMP649/2022

The court held that determination of whether the defendant's conduct constituted contempt must await trial and proof; the prosecution's decision to pursue committal rather than criminal charges is a prosecutorial prerogative not subject to judicial interference; the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the committal application; and the matter is to be dealt with under established civil judicial procedure as required by existing case law and rules.

Source excerpt

• Committal order
• Transfer of jurisdiction to high court
• Use of civil judicial procedure for contempt
• Prosecutorial discretion

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 何波添 Ronny

Court

District Court

Case number

DCCC696/2023

The court granted the extension and allowed the witness to testify by video link because the prosecution acted reasonably once it had confirmation of technical availability, the delay was not unnecessary, the witness was a key witness who would not return to Hong Kong, adequate arrangements existed to ensure testimony free from coercion, and permitting video-link testimony was less prejudicial to the administration of justice than adjournment or withdrawal of the prosecution; the impact on the defendant's fair trial rights was assessed as minimal and manageable.

Source excerpt

• Video link testimony
• Extension of filing deadline
• Witness availability
• Fair trial
• Judicial discretion

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 李茵茵

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC237/2023

The single-judge refused leave to appeal because the trial judge did not err in principle nor impose a manifestly excessive sentence: the offences were serious, the applicant actively participated in group violence and later disposed of shoes to defeat identification, mitigating factors (including volunteer service and some provocation) were insufficient to outweigh aggravating features, and the totality principle supported the cumulative sentence of five years six months.

Source excerpt

• Wounding with intent
• Riot
• Perverting the course of justice
• Sentencing principles
• Destruction of evidence
• Private retribution (vigilantism)

Read case analysis

林馬光 對 律政司司長

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCA1717/2023

The defendant filed a valid acknowledgement of service within the statutory period (8 Nov 2023) and the deadline for filing a defence was extended by the court pending the defendant's strike‑out application; accordingly the plaintiff's application for entry of final judgment was premature and did not satisfy the conditions of the High Court Rules, so the judgment summons was dismissed and costs ordered against the plaintiff.

Source excerpt

• Default judgment
• Acknowledgement of service
• Time for delivery of defence
• Striking out/setting aside
• Case management orders

Read case analysis

林永恒 v. 丁明幗

Court

District Court

Case number

DCCJ842/2022

The District Court dismissed this civil action after a prior referral to the High Court under restricted proceedings orders, with no order as to costs.

• Default judgment
• Restricted proceedings order
• Referral to high court
• Dismissal
• Default-judgment
• Restricted-proceedings-order

Read case analysis

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. SO YAT KAI

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMP351/2023

The court found criminal contempt from four courtroom disruptions in December 2021, imposed 2 months’ imprisonment suspended for 2 years, and awarded indemnity costs.

• Committal proceedings
• Courtroom conduct
• Sentencing and suspension
• Costs and indemnity
• Criminal-contempt
• Courtroom-conduct

Read case analysis

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN PO HONG

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMP2199/2021

Civil contempt for breaching a Judges Doxxing Injunction. The Court found contempt proved and imposed 14 days’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months.

• Breach of injunction
• Doxxing
• Sentencing
• Parallel criminal proceedings
• Mitigation/rehabilitation
• Civil-contempt

Read case analysis

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TANG LIN LING

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMP2929/2015

The High Court sentenced the respondent to 7 days’ imprisonment for criminal contempt after she took photographs inside court during proceedings.

• Photography in court
• Juror protection
• Witness anonymity
• Sentencing
• Criminal-contempt
• Courtroom-photography

Read case analysis

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TANG LIN LING

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMP2931/2015

The High Court sentenced the respondent to 7 days’ imprisonment for criminal contempt after she took photographs inside court, stressing deterrence and protection of jurors and witnesses.

• Illegal photography in court
• Juror and witness protection
• Sentencing for contempt
• Court disruption
• Criminal-contempt
• Courtroom-photography

Read case analysis

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TANG LIN LING

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMP2917/2015

The Court of First Instance sentenced Tang Lin Ling to 7 days’ imprisonment for criminal contempt after she took photographs inside court during proceedings.

• Illegal photography in court
• Sentencing
• Jury protection
• Witness anonymity
• Disruption to proceedings
• Costs application

Read case analysis