Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Double jeopardy

Legal area

Court

2 Sept 2024

WONG CHI WAI v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2269
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1337/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable constitutional ground to impugn the DoJ's prosecutorial decision under Article 63 Basic Law, there was no evidence of bad faith or political instruction, and an adequate alternative remedy (a stay application in the criminal proceedings) was available and being pursued.
8 May 2024

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. PERSONS CONDUCTING THEMSELVES IN ANY OF THE ACTS PROHIBITED UNDER PARAGRAPH 1(a), (b), (c) OR (d) OF THE INDORSEMENT OF CLAIM

Citation

[2024] HKCA 442
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP303/2023

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and granted an interlocutory contra mundum injunction because (1) the Chief Executive's NSL s47 certificate and the evidence established the 4 Acts posed national security risks, (2) a civil injunction is a permissible and necessary supplementary preventive measure where prosecutions alone would be inadequate to safeguard national security, (3) the court, while giving considerable deference to the executive on national security assessment, must itself decide the legal question of necessity and utility, and (4) concerns about unfairness, conflicts with cr…
11 May 2023

RASOLONIRINA MARIE YVON ALJYMI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 639
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP33/2023

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on the intended appeal, raised new grounds and evidence not previously advanced without good reason, and the Board's findings did not reveal any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; accordingly an extension to pursue a futile appeal was refused.
11 Mar 2022

HKSAR v. YEE WENJYE (also known as YU WENJIE) (alias ERIC YEE)

Citation

[2022] HKCFA 6
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC1/2022

The refusal of a stay by a High Court judge in an ongoing criminal trial is not a 'final decision' for the purposes of s31(b) of the HKCFAO because it does not finally dispose of the criminal matter and its merits can be reviewed on appeal against any subsequent conviction; accordingly the Court of Final Appeal has no jurisdiction to entertain a direct appeal from such a refusal and leave is refused absent an exceptional anterior point of law.
11 Mar 2022

HKSAR v. CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN) (陳克恩)

Citation

[2022] HKCFA 6
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC35/2021

The Court held it has no jurisdiction under Section 31(b) to entertain a direct appeal from the refusal of a stay by a Court of First Instance judge because such a refusal is not a final decision: it does not finally dispose of the criminal matter and its merits can be reviewed by the Court of Appeal on a subsequent appeal against conviction; no anterior point of law qualifying as final was established here and the policy against fragmentation precludes direct interlocutory appeals to the Court of Final Appeal.
30 Sept 2021

HKSAR v. FU MAN KIT (符文傑）

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 34
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC4/2021

BOR 11(6) applies only where there has been a final conviction or acquittal by a court exercising criminal jurisdiction in accordance with Hong Kong law and penal procedure; disciplinary proceedings under the Prison Rules do not qualify as such and therefore do not trigger BOR 11(6); likewise the common law discretionary stay for double jeopardy requires a prior determination by a court of competent jurisdiction; the Engel criteria apply to engagement of procedural fair trial guarantees but not to the substantive protection under BOR 11(6).
26 Aug 2021

RASOLONIRINA MARIE YVON ALJYMI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2458
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL815/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board's decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness; its credibility findings and assessment that the risk on return was low, and that state protection and internal relocation were available, were open to the Board and left the applicant with no reasonable prospect of success.
10 Jun 2021

RE AGARA ISAIAH BISHOP

Citation

[2021] HKCA 792
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP127/2020

Applicant's delay in seeking appeal was substantial and unexplained, he failed to provide any draft grounds or particularise any legal error or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision, and the Board's credibility findings and reliance on COI were within its province and reasonable; therefore there was no prospect of success and extension of time and leave were refused.
17 Mar 2021

HKSAR v. FU MAN KIT (符文傑)

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 10
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC29/2020

The Court certified that the question whether forfeiture of remission under the Prison Rules constitutes a criminal proceeding for double jeopardy purposes is one of great and general importance and granted leave to appeal so that the issue can be finally determined by the Court of Final Appeal.
25 Feb 2021

TRANSUNION LTD v. HONGKONG TAIJIN INDUSTRY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 484
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1353/2019

The Decision is interlocutory and does not determine the substantive rights of Zall within the meaning of Order 59 r 21(1)(a); consequently leave under HCO s14AA was required and, applying the standard for leave, Zall's proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success given the evidence supporting jurisdiction (Zall's Hong Kong residence and loan situs) and the lack of merit in the double jeopardy argument, so leave to appeal was refused.