Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Double criminality

Legal area

Court

19 Nov 2001

LAY ENG TEO v. SUPERINTENDENT OF TAI LAM CENTRE FOR WOMEN & ANOTHER

Citation

LAY ENG TEO v. SUPERINTENDENT OF TAI LAM CENTRE FOR WOMEN & ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL540/2001

The magistrate's committal was lawful because he was entitled to decide based on the authority to proceed and the totality of conduct shown on the supporting documents without giving detailed reasons or examining the foreign indictment for limitation/time-bar issues; the double criminality and money laundering descriptions were satisfied by the conduct-based approach in the US-Hong Kong Order and Hong Kong law permits liability via innocent agents.
12 Nov 1999

ROBERT HENRY COSBY v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR

Citation

ROBERT HENRY COSBY v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL118/1999

The Chief Executive acted lawfully in issuing the authority to proceed because the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance requires focus on the conduct disclosed by the requesting documents and on whether that conduct would constitute a Hong Kong scheduled offence; there was sufficient material to show the relevant conduct and that prosecution in the USA was not time‑barred, so the decision was not unlawful, irrational or an abuse of process.
14 Apr 1987

LAWRENCE LOUIS LEVY v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

LAWRENCE LOUIS LEVY v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV8/1987

The Court refused conditional leave because it is bound by the House of Lords decisions in Nielsen and McCaffery which establish the conduct-based test for double criminality; the applicant's contention was not a seriously arguable point nor of sufficient general or public importance to justify a Privy Council appeal.
25 Mar 1987

LAWRENCE LOUIS LEVY v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

LAWRENCE LOUIS LEVY v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV8/1987

The Court held that the magistrate must assess the conduct established by the evidence and decide whether that conduct, if it had occurred in Hong Kong/England, would constitute an extraditable offence listed in the domestic schedule; the magistrate need not consider the foreign state's substantive criminal law; applying Nielsen and McCaffery, the committal was lawful and the appeal is dismissed, subject to modifying the magistrate's order to remove findings purporting to state the foreign law's offences.
7 Jan 1987

THE QUEEN v. LAWRENCE LOUIS LEVY

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAWRENCE LOUIS LEVY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2323/1986

The Acting Governor's Order to Proceed was lawful; the Governor may specify multiple Hong Kong offences to reflect the conduct alleged; the Magistrate correctly confined himself to whether the evidence would, under Hong Kong law, justify committal on the specified local offences and whether those offences were extradition crimes; expert evidence about the substantive criminal law of the requesting state was not admissible except to satisfy narrow treaty conditions; the applications for habeas corpus and certiorari were dismissed.
7 Jan 1987

THE QUEEN v. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2738/1986

The Governor's Order to Proceed was lawfully made by specifying Hong Kong offences capturing the alleged conduct; the Magistrate correctly confined himself to whether the evidence established prima facie the specified Hong Kong extradition offences and therefore properly committed the applicant; the double criminality test requiring substantial similarity and admission of expert evidence on foreign substantive law is not applicable in committal proceedings beyond treaty threshold matters; the applications for habeas corpus, certiorari and declarations were dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

LAY ENG TEO v. SUPERINTENDENT OF TAI LAM CENTRE FOR WOMEN & ANOTHER

ROBERT HENRY COSBY v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR

LAWRENCE LOUIS LEVY v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

LAWRENCE LOUIS LEVY v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

THE QUEEN v. LAWRENCE LOUIS LEVY

THE QUEEN v. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ANOTHER