14 Dec 2005
Withholding part of the applicant’s salary under PFO s.17(2)(a) prior to conviction, as applied in this case, amounted to treating the applicant as guilty before trial and thus contravened the presumption of innocence under HKBORO art.11; therefore the Commissioner’s directions were quashed.
4 Mar 2003
The court upheld the Tribunal's conviction and the Senior Police Officer's increase of award: an interdicted officer retains the duty to assist disciplinary investigations; the falsehood was material to the investigation; the Tribunal's language showed a conviction reached to a sufficiently high standard appropriate to the gravity; the alleged linguistic ambiguity was not advanced below and did not undermine the Tribunal's finding; although procedural unfairness arose from inadequate advance notice of the show-cause hearing, there was no prejudice and the court exercised its discretion not to…
18 Oct 2000
The court found the essence of the Plaintiff's claim was to challenge the validity of a public law decision (the retrospective interdiction and the consequent withholding and forfeiture of salary), so the proceedings constituted an abuse of process brought to avoid Order 53; therefore the originating summons must be struck out and the claimant should pursue judicial review if appropriate.