Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Criminal contempt

Legal area

Court

24 Sept 2024

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LI KWOK WING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3001
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2254/2020

Defendants deliberately harassed and intimidated witnesses within the court precincts causing fear and affecting the administration of justice; apologies and claimed illnesses did not sufficiently reduce responsibility; therefore, absent exceptional circumstances, immediate custodial sentences of three months each are required to uphold witness protection and the rule of law.
29 Sept 2022

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HUI CHI FUNG

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2957
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP830/2021

The respondent deliberately produced false documents to procure the lift of a travel restriction and to abscond from prosecution; that conduct constituted criminal contempt which gravely undermined public confidence in the administration of justice and warranted a custodial sentence of 3 years and 6 months imprisonment.
4 Jun 2022

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TANG LIN LING

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2471
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2929/2015

The respondent was guilty of criminal contempt because she intentionally took three photographs inside the courtroom (actus reus) and her basic intent to take the photographs combined with the inherently prejudicial effect of that conduct satisfied the requisite mens rea for this form of contempt; the conduct in fact disrupted and delayed the proceedings and was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
4 Jun 2022

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TANG LIN LING

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2471
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2925/2015

The respondent was guilty of criminal contempt because she deliberately took three photographs inside the courtroom (actus reus) with the basic intent to take those photographs (mens rea sufficient for this form of contempt), and those actions were inherently likely and in fact prejudicial to the due administration of justice, as evidenced by eyewitness testimony and photographs recovered from her phone.
4 Jun 2022

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TANG LIN LING

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2471
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2917/2015

The respondent's deliberate acts of taking three photographs inside Court 28, corroborated by eyewitnesses and timestamps on photographs, established the actus reus and a basic mens rea sufficient for criminal contempt because the conduct was deliberate, inherently likely to prejudice the administration of justice and in fact caused disruption; therefore conviction for criminal contempt was warranted.
4 Jun 2022

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TANG LIN LING

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2471
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2931/2015

The respondent intentionally took three photographs inside the courtroom; for this form of contempt a basic intent to perform the act together with the act itself suffices where the conduct is inherently likely to prejudice the administration of justice; the acts here did in fact interrupt proceedings and consume court resources, therefore the respondent is guilty of criminal contempt.
16 Mar 2021

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHIN PO FUN

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 598
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP231/2020

The defendant intentionally and persistently disobeyed a widely publicized injunction and ignored repeated on‑site warnings, thereby interfering with bailiffs and the administration of justice; this conduct warranted a custodial sentence to achieve deterrence, but considering guilty plea, remorse, limited role, short duration and absence of violence the court imposed 30 days' imprisonment and exercised discretion to suspend it for 12 months on condition of no further criminal contempt or imprisonable offences; costs of HK$400,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.
16 May 2019

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG CHI FUNG

Citation

[2019] HKCA 548
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV14/2018

The appeal is allowed in part because although the respondent's contempt was grave and warranted immediate imprisonment, the sentencing court failed to articulate appropriate weight for the respondent's youth; proper starting point is 3 months' imprisonment reduced by one-third for admission and apology, resulting in a substituted sentence of 2 months' imprisonment.
31 Aug 2018

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. YUNG YIU SING

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2027
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2925/2015

Each respondent, having been a party to the injunction and having remained in the area after repeated clear announcements and warnings in circumstances where their presence was calculated to and did delay or frustrate the bailiffs and police in executing the injunction, possessed the requisite mens rea and committed criminal contempt; clearance was not complete until the plaintiff's agents were satisfied and the mere removal of major obstructions did not absolve respondents of the obligation to leave.
31 Aug 2018

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. SIEW YUN LONG

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2027
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2917/2015

Each respondent, being within the class of persons restrained by the injunction, after repeated announcements and warnings, remained in the Area and by their presence and conduct materially obstructed or impeded the bailiffs and police executing the injunction; the requisite actus reus and mens rea were established and each respondent is guilty of criminal contempt.