Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mutual legal assistance

Legal area

Court

29 Jun 2023

HKSAR v. CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1719
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC309/2019

The judge held the defence failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that a fair trial is impossible or that continuation would constitute an abuse of process; remedial measures (ordering prosecution to call or tender two witnesses, providing prior transcripts to witnesses, use of MLA) mitigate prejudice from delay and memory loss; previous detailed analysis by DHCJ Bruce supporting retrial fairness was persuasive; therefore stay refused.
6 Jun 2019

RE DAVID PHILIP PANNICK QC

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1469
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP487/2019

The application was allowed because the public interest in securing the assistance of an eminent constitutional counsel to address significant constitutional and public law issues outweighed opposing considerations, subject to the undertaking that the local counsel already retained would appear with him; the admission decision was later rendered academic by the consensual discontinuance of the related judicial review proceedings.
4 Nov 2014

HKSAR v. HON MING KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. HON MING KONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC26/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because no point of law of great and general importance was raised: Article 95 does not impose a duty to establish a mutual legal assistance scheme; the applicants failed to show inequality of arms or that the absence of Mainland witness evidence made the trial unfair to the degree requiring a permanent stay; the Court of Appeal's fresh discretionary exercise was unimpeachable and there was no substantial and grave injustice warranting further appeal.
5 Aug 2014

KOMAL PATEL AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS

Citation

KOMAL PATEL AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA183/2014

Where sworn evidence given in proceedings in another jurisdiction is materially inconsistent with sworn statements in the local proceedings, and an arguable case of serious misconduct is disclosed, the judge has the public duty and authority to refer the matter to the relevant foreign prosecuting authority without waiting for a final domestic judgment; accordingly the court ordered disclosure of specified documents to the Attorney General of Singapore.
7 Sept 2012

HARMONY GOLD LTD AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

Citation

HARMONY GOLD LTD AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV175/2010

Leave to appeal was refused because the court was not satisfied that the questions, though potentially important, had reasonable prospects of success and there was no exceptional reason to grant leave; the new authority relied on (Dotcom) did not alter that conclusion.
9 Dec 2010

CHAN MEI YIU, PADDY AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN MEI YIU, PADDY AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL16/2007

The court exercised its broad discretion under the revised costs regime, having regard to the nature of the claims, conduct of the parties, partial successes and failures, and public interest considerations, and ordered that overall the Applicants must pay 60% of the Respondents' costs to be taxed on a party-and-party basis while awarding the Applicants specific interlocutory costs (including 100% of Applicants' costs for the 30 August 2007 reserve) and costs of the successful amendment and leave appearances; satellite proceedings (HCMP 1157/2007) were dealt with by the order that costs be "i…
30 Jul 2010

HARMONY GOLD LTD AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

Citation

HARMONY GOLD LTD AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL19/2007

The warrants were lawfully issued and executed under s12 MLAO. The Secretary for Justice and magistrate were not materially misled; the presence of Italian investigators to assist in identifying relevant material was "necessary and reasonable" and permitted by s12(3); although Italian officers actively participated in two searches and improperly made copies/notes which were later shredded, those actions did not render the warrants or seizures unlawful in the overall circumstances; post-seizure handling should follow s12(7)-(11); judicial review dismissed.
14 Feb 2008

RMBSA CORPORATE SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

RMBSA CORPORATE SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV327/2006

Where a magistrate issues a warrant strictly within the powers and requirements of s12 of the Ordinance and the warrant is directed to a separate corporate service company's documents (not solicitor practice papers), the magistrate is not required as a matter of law to attach express conditions excluding privileged material or requiring lawyer presence; absence of such conditions does not invalidate the warrant provided there were reasonable grounds, statutory requirements were met and no prejudice resulted.
3 Aug 2007

CHAN MEI YIU, PADDY AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN MEI YIU, PADDY AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL16/2007

Leave to re-amend was granted because the proposed amendments did not introduce new grounds but extended the same central allegation of misrepresentation and material nondisclosure to decisions by the Secretary for Justice and police; the applicants acted sufficiently promptly once the full scope was revealed, the delay did not cause substantial prejudice or detriment to good administration, and the protection of fundamental rights (Article 28 Basic Law) and need to preserve evidence justified allowing amendment and interim protective orders.
28 Jun 2007

HSU MAY CHUN, KATHERINE AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

Citation

HSU MAY CHUN, KATHERINE AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL18/2007

Applying a modern flexible disclosure approach (Tweed) and balancing confidentiality and investigative prejudice against applicants' need, the court inspected the letter of request and supplementary material, concluded comprehensive disclosure or redaction was not possible without prejudicing ongoing investigations, found the affidavits and foreign letters of request provided sufficient material for the applicants to present their case, and, being bound by Apple Daily, held the informations supporting the warrants attract PII; accordingly ordered refusal of disclosure of both the Italian lett…