Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs in criminal proceedings

Legal area

Court

30 Dec 2022

PANG YU HIM v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1164
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5519/2021

The ASOC was struck out and the action dismissed because the plaintiff failed to plead the essential subjective mental element of misfeasance in public office with sufficient primary facts, failed to plead material (special) damage as required for the tort, parts of the claim were bound to fail on the trial transcript, and the claim for defence costs constituted an abuse of process because the proper avenue was an application to the Magistrates' Court under the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance.
31 Aug 2018

香港特別行政區訴李本立

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2000
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA288/2017

Section 65(2) applies because the statutory definition of ‘employer’ includes a director/authorized agent; the acquittal was properly interpreted as based on lack of control on the charged date (liquidation) which satisfies the statutory ground for acquittal under s65(2); on the evidence the trial judge reasonably found the company and director had, before liquidation, the ability or intent to divert funds and deliberately avoid payment of the tribunal award, so the exercise of discretion to order the appellant to pay the outstanding award was lawful and not vitiated by error; refusal of cost…
18 Jan 2018

HKSAR v. BULLEN CHRISTIAN ANTHONY

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 28
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA50/2017

The application for a certificate was refused because the law on costs is settled, the discretionary exercise depends on the specific facts and the defendant's conduct can be considered, and the case did not raise any point of law of great and general importance warranting a certificate to the Court of Final Appeal.
29 Apr 2016

HKSAR v. TAM LAP SHEK

Citation

HKSAR v. TAM LAP SHEK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC199/2012

The Court held that, in the special circumstances of this case, no further reduction in sentence for assistance was warranted; the application for reduction was refused, costs were awarded to the respondent, and the papers were to be provided to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration.
11 Jul 2008

HKSAR v. PENTA-OCEAN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. PENTA-OCEAN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA945/2007

The Court of First Instance held that once the Deputy Magistrate found the key prosecution witness not credible there was no evidence to sustain the charge; the Deputy Magistrate's conclusion that the appellant had brought suspicion upon itself and misled the prosecution was contrary to the evidence and his own findings and therefore erroneous; accordingly the refusal to award costs was set aside and the appellant was entitled to costs.
29 Nov 2002

HKSAR v. LEE TSANG KONG

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE TSANG KONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC169/2001

For the purpose of determining applicability of the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance, only the date of the offence alleged against the accused in the count charged against him is relevant; since the 4th accused was charged only on count 3 alleging offences between 1 December 1995 and 30 April 1996 (before the Ordinance commenced), s.25 excludes application of s.17 and no statutory power exists to award costs; English Practice Directions cannot be invoked to supply a substantive statutory power; accordingly the costs application is dismissed.
29 Nov 2002

HKSAR v. LEE TSANG KONG

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE TSANG KONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC232/2001

For purposes of the Ordinance the relevant date is the date of the offence alleged against the applicant; the 4th accused was charged only on count 3 which alleged conduct before the Ordinance commenced, section 25 therefore excludes section 17 from applying to him; the Ordinance does not have retrospective effect and English Practice Directions cannot supply a statutory power to award costs absent domestic legislation; accordingly the application for costs fails.
21 Mar 2002

EWAN QUAYLE LAUNDER v. HKSAR

Citation

EWAN QUAYLE LAUNDER v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC3/2001

The court exercised its discretion to withhold costs because the appellant had attracted suspicion such that costs up to and including the second trial were inappropriate, the appellant pursued multiple unsuccessful points on appeal except for a fatal jury misdirection which neither party detected, and on the totality of the circumstances an award of costs was not justified.
21 Oct 2000

HKSAR v. CHAN KWOK HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN KWOK HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA708/2000

Although the offences were serious and repeated, the aggregate 3 year sentence was excessive given the defendant's guilty pleas and the limits of sentencing jurisdiction; the proper exercise of discretion required reducing the total effective sentence to 2 years and setting aside the costs order because there was no proper basis to impose significant prosecution costs on the defendant.
6 May 2000

HKSAR v. YUEN MOON CHUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. YUEN MOON CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA752/1999

The magistrate had sufficiently analysed and accepted PW1's evidence, such that the appellate court would not interfere with the credibility and factual findings; therefore the conviction was upheld. However, the magistrate's procedural handling of the nominal costs order lacked adequate opportunity for defence to be heard and, given evidence the estimated costs likely exceeded HK$30,000 and no agreement existed, the court allowed the appeal on costs and ordered taxation if not agreed.