Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Perverting the course of justice

Legal area

Court

28 Jan 2025

羅希孝對裁判官屈麗雯

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 392
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1947/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure of material documents in an ex parte leave application and the magistrate's refusal to issue private summonses was a reasonable application of the prima facie screening test; the proposed criminal charges lacked sufficient prima facie evidence and the judicial review had no realistic prospect of success, so even if leave were granted the substantive claim would be dismissed.
12 Sept 2024

香港特別行政區訴李茵茵

Citation

[2024] HKCA 860
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC237/2023

The single-judge refused leave to appeal because the trial judge did not err in principle nor impose a manifestly excessive sentence: the offences were serious, the applicant actively participated in group violence and later disposed of shoes to defeat identification, mitigating factors (including volunteer service and some provocation) were insufficient to outweigh aggravating features, and the totality principle supported the cumulative sentence of five years six months.
15 Dec 2023

HKSAR v. YEUNG KING LUN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKDC 6
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC299/2021

The court found that, on the material before it and having regard to available remedial measures, a fair trial remained possible; the matters complained of went to credibility and were not shown to be the product of bad faith or so grave as to affront the court’s sense of justice or undermine public confidence. Accordingly a permanent stay was not justified and must be refused.
18 Oct 2022

SIU SEE KONG t/a SIU AND CO v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3228
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL726/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to show the DPP acted under political instruction or in bad faith; the Applicant relied on an inapplicable Basic Law article and failed to particularise the challenge to the Prosecution Code, rendering the application not reasonably arguable.
31 Jul 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1238
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA193/2019

The magistrate lawfully exercised her s.8 discretion to refuse to issue private summonses because the informations and subsequent submissions contained only bare allegations and no material prima facie evidence of the essential ingredients of the alleged offences; Article 10's guarantee of a public hearing does not apply to a magistrate's pre‑summons refusal; ss.21 and 22 cannot be invoked to compel production of CCTV prior to the institution of proceedings; service by notice‑board posting under s.115(4)(c) was valid in the circumstances; accordingly the appeals are dismissed.
31 Jul 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1240
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA311/2019

The magistrate properly refused to issue the private summonses for good cause because the appellant failed to provide requested particulars or supporting materials and thus the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not prima facie present; service by noticeboard was valid; allegations of bias were unproven; and Article 10 did not entitle the appellant to a public hearing at the summons‑application stage. All three appeals are dismissed.
31 Jul 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1238
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA192/2019

The magistrate correctly refused to issue the private summonses because the appellant failed to adduce any material establishing the essential ingredients of the alleged offences prima facie; therefore there was 'good cause' under s.8(1B)(b) to refuse; Article 10 does not require a public hearing for such pre‑charge applications; ss.21 and 22 do not permit ordering production of CCTV prior to issuance of a summons; no actual or apparent bias was shown.
31 Jul 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1240
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA309/2019

The magistrate had good cause to refuse to issue the private summonses because the appellant repeatedly failed to provide particulars, materials or evidence requested so the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not prima facie present; service by posting was valid; Article 10 HBOR did not apply to the refusals; and no actual or apparent bias was demonstrated.
31 Jul 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1238
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA194/2019

The magistrate lawfully refused to issue the private summonses because the appellant failed to produce any material establishing the essential ingredients of the alleged offences prima facie; the refusal did not breach Article 10 as those guarantees do not apply to pre‑summons determinations; no actual or apparent bias was shown; ss.21–22 could not be used to compel CCTV before a summons issued; substituted service under s.115(4)(c) was valid and the appeals were dismissed.
21 May 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 842
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA600/2019

The magistrate properly refused the private summons because the appellant failed to provide particulars establishing the essential elements of the alleged offence; there was no evidence of bias or of breach of the appellant's Article 10 rights; the appellant had been given notice, and the appeal was therefore dismissed as wholly devoid of merit.