Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs of defence

Legal area

Court

23 Feb 2021

香港特別行政區訴曾健勇

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 388
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA102/2019

Appellant is entitled to the costs of the appeal against conviction, but is not entitled to recover trial costs from public funds because there were positive reasons to refuse them: objective evidence (CCTV) and appellant's conduct (failure to mention alleged injury to police, delayed medical treatment and admissions) gave rise to self-incriminatory inference relevant to the charges; additionally, the appeal was allowed for procedural error and not equivalent to an acquittal on the merits for costs purposes. The court also lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order refusing…
12 Sept 2008

HKSAR v. CHRISTIAN ANTHONY BULLEN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHRISTIAN ANTHONY BULLEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA556/2008

The court allowed the appeal and ordered costs because the magistrate erred in refusing costs: the appellant had a genuine albeit mistaken belief based on SMSs, cries and evidence of restraint and injury; his actions did not meaningfully bring suspicion on him and he did nothing after police arrival to attract suspicion; therefore the normal principle that an acquitted defendant should receive costs applied.
29 May 2003

HKSAR v. LEE TSANG KONG

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE TSANG KONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC232/2001

The accused was entitled to costs because there was no evidence his conduct during the investigation or trial brought suspicion on him; the jury acquitted him and the court would not second‑guess that verdict, therefore costs of the original trial and retrial were awarded and to be taxed if not agreed.
29 May 2003

HKSAR v. LEE TSANG KONG

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE TSANG KONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC169/2001

The accused was entitled to costs because there was no evidence his conduct during investigation or trial brought suspicion or misled the prosecution; he elected to remain silent and call no witnesses, and the judge must not second‑guess the jury's acquittal. Accordingly costs of both the original trial (including 58 days and the 17 September 2002 hearing) and the retrial are awarded and to be taxed if not agreed.
10 Nov 1998

HKSAR v. TONG CUN LIN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. TONG CUN LIN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC303/1996

Where an acquitted defendant's conduct has objectively led the prosecution to suspect that he was party to the alleged offence or has deliberately concealed material facts that would attract regulatory or criminal consequences, the court exercising its discretion under s73A(1) may refuse payment of defence costs from public revenue; applying that test the court refused costs to the 1st, 3rd and 4th defendants who had by admitted or demonstrable conduct (buy-back/indemnity arrangements, inconsistent accounts about beneficial interests, and supplying seriously inaccurate/incomplete information…
28 Jun 1995

R. v. NG CHOR WAN and Another

Citation

R. v. NG CHOR WAN and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC304/1994

Because the applicants succeeded on a substantial matter on appeal, did not bring the prosecution upon themselves, and their constitutional right to silence cannot be held against them, the court allowed the costs application and ordered that compensatory sums be ascertained by the Registrar under s83XX(5).
8 Jun 1994

Re JUDGE\'S RESERVATION (NO. 1) OF 1994 & ATTORNEY GENERAL\'S REFERENCE (NO. 1) OF 1994

Citation

Re JUDGE\'S RESERVATION (NO. 1) OF 1994 & ATTORNEY GENERAL\'S REFERENCE (NO. 1) OF 1994
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAQL1/1994

The Court held that a s81 reservation made after acquittal is incompetent and that, under s73A, costs may be ordered to be paid out of public revenue only where the acquitted person was liable for those costs (private representation or legally aided with a contribution); where a legally aided acquitted person made no contribution and was not liable, no order for payment out of public revenue should be made.
8 Jun 1994

JUDGE\'S RESERVATION (NO. 1) OF 1994 and ATTORNEY GENERAL\'S REFERENCE (NO. 1) OF 1994

Citation

JUDGE\'S RESERVATION (NO. 1) OF 1994 and ATTORNEY GENERAL\'S REFERENCE (NO. 1) OF 1994
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAG1/1994

The Court held it had no jurisdiction under s81 to entertain a reservation made after acquittal; on the merits under s73A the court may order payment of defence costs from public revenue only where the acquitted person was liable to pay those costs (for example privately represented or having made a contribution); where the acquitted person was legally aided and made no contribution, no order for payment from public revenue may be made.