Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Informer privilege

Legal area

Court

5 Aug 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG TSZ WAN

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1936
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC391/2019

No order for further disclosure was made because the material before the court (police document) carried a real risk of implicitly revealing the informant's identity and the defence failed to show a factual basis that disclosure was necessary to establish innocence rather than speculative; informer privilege therefore prevailed subject to the continuing duty to disclose if circumstances change.
16 Apr 2020

HKSAR v. NAYAB AMIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCA 196
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC341/2017

The convictions of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd applicants were quashed and retrial ordered because the judge materially misdirected the jury by limiting the possible inference from recent possession to robbery only when possession was equally consistent with handling stolen goods; additionally the PII process was defective because the prosecution failed to provide a witness statement from Mr X and the court emphasised the correct legal approach to PII (active informers are not automatically within the informer class and a detailed statement is required to assess the innocence-at-stake exception), bu…
14 Mar 2018

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. NUTANIX HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCT 1
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA1/2017

The Tribunal balanced the public interest in protecting leniency applicants and encouraging frank cooperation against the respondents’ right to relevant material and concluded that (1) Class 1 leniency documents and Class 5 unsuccessful without prejudice communications may be withheld on informer privilege and without prejudice privilege/public interest immunity grounds; (2) the original complaint form (Class 3) is disclosable to the confidentiality ring because the complainant’s identity was already deployed by the Commission; (3) Class 6 internal documents are not immune as a whole and rele…
14 Jul 2014

香港特別行政區訴林逸楓

Citation

香港特別行政區訴林逸楓
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC178/2013

Applicant failed to discharge the burden to show that disclosure of whether the key prosecution witness was an informant was necessary to establish innocence under the 'innocence at stake' exception to informer privilege; the trial judge's directions to the jury were proper and did not deprive the applicant of a fair trial; leave to appeal and the disclosure application were dismissed, conviction and sentence stand.
31 Dec 2013

HKSAR v. AGARA ISAIAH BISHOP

Citation

HKSAR v. AGARA ISAIAH BISHOP
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC354/2012

Section 57(2) DDO as drafted (excluding proceedings under the DDO from the common law 'innocence at stake' exception) is inconsistent with the right to a fair trial; the trial judge must conduct a full inquiry and decide, on evidence, whether disclosure is necessary for innocence, and where that process was not followed the conviction must be set aside and a retrial ordered.
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

HKSAR v. CHEUNG TSZ WAN

HKSAR v. NAYAB AMIN AND OTHERS

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. NUTANIX HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

香港特別行政區 訴 林逸楓

HKSAR v. AGARA ISAIAH BISHOP

CHU PIU WING v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

香港特別行政區訴林逸楓