Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bringing suspicion upon oneself

Legal area

Court

30 Oct 2024

HKSAR v. SHAFIQ MUHAMMAD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2634
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA196/2023

The magistrate did not err in refusing costs because the appellant's conduct — approaching a stranger and placing his hand on the wrist wearing a valuable watch, causing a dispute and attracting police attention — amounted to bringing suspicion upon himself and provided a positive reason to deprive him of costs; on rehearing the Court of First Instance would have reached the same conclusion, so the refusal of costs is upheld.
11 Jul 2024

HKSAR v. CHEN FEN (陳奮)

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 19
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC4/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the independent evidence and circumstances (meeting the night before, complainant's intoxication and vulnerability, time spent at her home, CCTV and messages, forensic findings and medical observations) provided an ample basis for the judge to conclude the applicant had brought suspicion upon himself, and there was no reasonable basis for the Court of Final Appeal to interfere with that discretionary decision.
23 Aug 2018

HKSAR v. LUAN GANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1040
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC788/2015

D1 was awarded 50% of his trial costs (excluding costs occasioned by the five unsuccessful defence applications) and none of the costs incurred before the information was laid in the magistracy because his flight from the mainland and transfer of assets out of Hong Kong objectively brought suspicion upon him; D2 was awarded her pre-legal aid trial costs and her legal aid contribution (excluding costs occasioned by the five applications) because evidence showed she merely assisted D1 without knowledge of his business affairs. The prosecution bears some responsibility for relying on an expert o…
28 Apr 2015

HKSAR v. KOTAGARALAHALLI PEDDAPPAIAH NAGARAJA

Citation

HKSAR v. KOTAGARALAHALLI PEDDAPPAIAH NAGARAJA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA707/2014

On the agreed facts and documentary exhibits the magistrate legitimately concluded the appellant had de facto control of the KPN account, engaged in transactions and transfers to BT (of which he was sole director and signatory) that created a reasonable and positive suspicion of his involvement. Those positive reasons justified the exercise of discretion to refuse costs under s.3 Cap 492; the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the magistrate's refusal to award costs.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. SHAFIQ MUHAMMAD

HKSAR v. CHEN FEN (陳奮)

HKSAR v. LUAN GANG AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. KOTAGARALAHALLI PEDDAPPAIAH NAGARAJA