Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fugitive offenders ordinance

Legal area

Court

15 Oct 2019

HKSAR v. YIM SHEK WO

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1164
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC307/2017

Leave to appeal refused because none of the grounds were reasonably arguable: the trial judge lawfully admitted the confessional evidence after proper voir dire, the summing-up was balanced when read as a whole and did not undermine fairness, the Fugitive Offenders direction was a legitimate assessment of plausibility with emphasis on the accused's belief, and directions on drawing inferences were correct and properly contextualised.
8 Apr 2019

XIE JING FENG v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 910
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL855/2019

The committal order was lawful because the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance requires production and authentication only of the defined supporting documents (not the Request for Surrender), the supporting documents were duly authenticated under s23 and admissible, the Request was received within the 60-day period, and issues such as potential death penalty are matters for the Chief Executive under s13(5); accordingly the 2nd application for habeas corpus was dismissed.
20 May 2003

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

Citation

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

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV7/2003

Section 10(6)(b)(iii) is an evidential provision only and does not impose an additional jurisdictional constraint that would prevent committal or extradition on the basis that the prosecution would be time-barred in Hong Kong; application for certificate and leave to appeal dismissed.
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 Oct 1999

RE ROBERT HENRY COSBY

Citation

RE ROBERT HENRY COSBY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL118/1999

Bail refused because there were substantial grounds to believe the applicant would fail to surrender to custody: he had no ties in Hong Kong, demonstrated conduct evidencing intention to avoid trial, worldwide contacts and means to evade, and the medical evidence and newly advanced circumstances did not outweigh the real risk of flight.
4 Aug 1999

HKSAR v. ROBERT HENRY COSBY

Citation

HKSAR v. ROBERT HENRY COSBY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4448/1999

The High Court (Court of First Instance) has inherent jurisdiction to hear bail applications in extradition proceedings; such applications are not governed by the Criminal Procedure Ordinance and s.10(5) FOO (which applies to courts of committal) does not automatically bind the High Court; the HKSAR is the proper respondent where the arrest was effected by Hong Kong authorities; extradition bail requires a higher standard of scrutiny than ordinary bail because of treaty obligations.
24 Feb 1999

In re Chong Bing Keung Peter

Citation

In re Chong Bing Keung Peter
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL19/1999

The habeas corpus application fails because extradition committal proceedings are a preliminary inquiry not a trial, the applicant did not raise an arguable case that the magistrate erred in law or that race prejudice would likely occur at trial, and there is no entitlement in extradition committal proceedings to an order under s.77/77E to obtain foreign testimony to undermine the evidence before the magistrate.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. YIM SHEK WO

XIE JING FENG v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER

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

ROBERT HENRY COSBY v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR

RE ROBERT HENRY COSBY

HKSAR v. ROBERT HENRY COSBY

In re Chong Bing Keung Peter