Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bill of rights article 11(2)(g)

Legal area

Court

14 Jul 2001

PINEMILL CO. LTD. v. LAI HONG SAN AND OTHERS

Citation

PINEMILL CO. LTD. v. LAI HONG SAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW19/1998

Privilege against self‑incrimination is not available to a person examined under s.221 Companies Ordinance because the section is directed to the public interest of enabling liquidators to obtain information expeditiously and the statutory scheme and court safeguards demonstrate an implied abrogation of the privilege; invocation of the privilege requires a real risk of prosecution which was not established in the instant application.
3 May 2001

HKSAR v. LEE MING TEE AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE MING TEE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC8/2000

The Court held that sections 72 and 73A CPO are not applicable to costs of proceedings in the Court of Final Appeal and, exercising its broad discretion under section 43, made the order nisi absolute requiring the respondents to pay the appellant's costs in this Court because the respondents' stay application unjustifiably diverted proceedings and there was no basis to defer the costs decision until after trial.
24 Jul 1996

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TSANG WAI KEUNG

Citation

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TSANG WAI KEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA661/1996

Section 62A does not infringe Article 11(2)(g) because that Article protects against compulsion at trial and not investigatory demands; alternatively, disclosure of driver identity does not amount to compelled testimony or confession in the trial sense; the authorised person had sufficient grounds to suspect an offence; conviction and sentence were appropriate.

Hong Kong Case Law

PINEMILL CO. LTD. v. LAI HONG SAN AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. LEE MING TEE AND ANOTHER

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TSANG WAI KEUNG