Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Authentication of foreign documents

Legal area

Court

27 May 2022

MEHBOOB QAISER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1562
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL194/2022

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to provide sufficient authenticated evidence of a significant change in circumstances under s37ZO and thus had no realistic prospect of success given prior findings of low localized risk and availability of internal relocation; an RPO was justified because the applicant had persistently attempted to re-litigate finally determined non-refoulement claims, amounting to abuse of process and vexatious litigation.
8 Apr 2019

XIE JING FENG v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 910
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL855/2019

The committal order was lawful because the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance requires production and authentication only of the defined supporting documents (not the Request for Surrender), the supporting documents were duly authenticated under s23 and admissible, the Request was received within the 60-day period, and issues such as potential death penalty are matters for the Chief Executive under s13(5); accordingly the 2nd application for habeas corpus was dismissed.
7 Aug 2015

RE HAN FEI

Citation

RE HAN FEI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAG1463/2015

The application was dismissed because it failed materially to comply with mandatory provisions of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules and the Guide to Non-Contentious Probate Practice (wrong/absent specified forms, lack of required apostille/authentication, inadequate competent proof of entitlement, and improperly executed affidavits and execution pages), and the defects were such that the court would not properly exercise any discretion to waive compliance.
28 Jul 2011

HO MAN KONG v. SUPERINTENDENT OF LAI CHI KOK RECEPTION AND ANOTHER

Citation

HO MAN KONG v. SUPERINTENDENT OF LAI CHI KOK RECEPTION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL17/2011

Recordings lawfully obtained under Australian authorization do not constitute "telecommunications interception product" under s.61(1) ICSO because the statutory definition of relevant prescribed authorization refers to Hong Kong authorised interceptions; the Australian arrest warrant and attached Court Attendance Notice constituted properly authenticated supporting documents and sufficiently disclosed conspiracy; therefore the habeas corpus application fails and the committal stands.
15 Dec 2006

HUANG YUAN YUAN IAN v. SUPERINTENDENT OF LAI CHI KOK RECEPTION CENTRE AND ANOTHER

Citation

HUANG YUAN YUAN IAN v. SUPERINTENDENT OF LAI CHI KOK RECEPTION CENTRE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC53/2006

The Court held that the Swiss affidavits met the statutory authentication requirements (judge's certification and official seal via the Minister's Certificate of Authentication and the judge's signature on exhibits) and therefore, being duly authenticated under s.23, they were admissible in extradition proceedings without further proof; no reasonably arguable case to the contrary was established, so leave and certification were refused.
11 Jan 2006

HUANG YUAN YUAN IAN v. SUPERINTENDENT OF LAI CHI KOK RECEPTION CENTRE AND ANOTHER

Citation

HUANG YUAN YUAN IAN v. SUPERINTENDENT OF LAI CHI KOK RECEPTION CENTRE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL103/2005

Magistrate's committal order was lawful: the foreign evidence was sufficiently authenticated and provided adequate prima facie basis for committal; no abuse of Hong Kong process or bad faith by Singaporean authorities was established to a degree warranting a permanent stay; questions of discretionary refusal under Art.6(1) are for the Chief Executive, not the court; habeas corpus dismissed and detention lawful.
30 Sept 2005

SEE CHERK CHING v. SUPERINTENDENT OF LAI CHI KOK RECEPTION CENTRE AND ANOTHER

Citation

SEE CHERK CHING v. SUPERINTENDENT OF LAI CHI KOK RECEPTION CENTRE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL4/2005

The Fugitive Offenders Ordinance does not require supporting evidence to be depositions or statements on oath or affirmation nor require translations to be certified on oath; authentication under s.23 is the statutory threshold for admissibility of supporting documents, and on that basis the magistrate's committal was lawful; habeas corpus dismissed.
14 May 1991

LAW KIN MAN v. GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAW KIN MAN v. GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV161/1990

The magistrate applied the correct prima facie test; the unchallenged sworn affidavits of accomplices, together with declarations by a co-conspirator and duly authenticated foreign documents and photographs, constituted admissible prima facie evidence (including admissible declarations in furtherance of a common design and sufficient foundation for identification of the drugs as heroin) to justify committal for extradition; therefore the habeas corpus application and the appeal were dismissed.