Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disciplinary tribunal procedure

Legal area

Court

8 Nov 2005

CHIK PO YEE v. VOCATIONAL TRAINING COUNCIL AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHIK PO YEE v. VOCATIONAL TRAINING COUNCIL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL59/2005

The application to adjourn was refused: on balance the court concluded that proceeding as scheduled better served justice because the CFA's pending decision was unlikely to conclusively resolve the key issues in this case, the applicant would suffer ongoing prejudice to reputation and career if delayed, and potential savings from adjournment were speculative.
28 Jun 2005

CHEUK FAN MING v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEUK FAN MING v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL134/2004

The court held the disciplinary process was overall fair and the applicant suffered no material prejudice from the inability to cross-examine absent witnesses; the Commissioner lawfully relied on evidence already before the tribunal (including the ICAC interview) in assessing culpability and penalty; the Secretary was not required to give reasons in the circumstances; nondisclosure of the final minute was an error but caused no material prejudice; therefore judicial review relief was refused and the decision to retire the applicant with deferred pension was upheld.
2 Dec 1992

RE IP KAM WING

Citation

RE IP KAM WING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP768/1991

A disciplinary tribunal constituted under Part II of the Police (Discipline) Regulations is not required by those Regulations to give detailed reasons for its findings; Lam Tin-chung does not apply to such domestic defaulter proceedings; Turnbull identification directions are not strictly binding on a police disciplinary tribunal though the tribunal must remain alert to misidentification; on the evidence the adjudicating officer properly found identification and the factual predicates for charges J and K satisfied; there was no error of law or unfairness warranting certiorari and the applicat…
4 Sept 1984

CHU PIU WING v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

CHU PIU WING v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV84/1984

The subpoena was an oppressive and abusive use of the High Court's process because investigators had given the appellant conditional assurances and implied immunity that induced his cooperation; public interest requires holding state officials to such promises, so the subpoena was set aside and the committal warrant discharged. The appellant was not entitled to absolute informer anonymity under Marks v. Beyfus on the facts, but the abuse of process principle prevailed.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHIK PO YEE v. VOCATIONAL TRAINING COUNCIL AND ANOTHER

CHEUK FAN MING v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND ANOTHER

RE IP KAM WING

CHU PIU WING v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL