Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Pre-trial publicity

  • 28 Feb 2017

    HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2018] HKCFI 315
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCC41/2016

    Application dismissed: on the balance of probabilities the recorded pre-trial publicity was limited in scale and largely historic, passage of time and available judicial measures (directions, adjournment, jury vetting) meant a fair trial remained practicable; therefore the threshold that no direction could remove prejudice was not met and a permanent stay as abuse of process was not warranted.

  • 9 Feb 2017

    HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2018] HKCFI 307
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCC41/2016

    The court concluded that where published material creates a substantial risk of prejudice to the fairness of a criminal trial the media must be warned and restrained; accordingly the court issued a warning prohibiting publication of anything likely to create a substantial risk of prejudice to HCCC 41/2016, directed that the media not report the Direction during the proceedings, warned of the risk of contempt proceedings, and granted leave to serve the Direction on the Facebook operator to mitigate prejudicial pre-trial publicity.

  • 19 Nov 2013

    HKSAR v. LEW MON HUNG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LEW MON HUNG
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCC819/2013

    Application dismissed because the defence failed to establish on balance of probabilities that a fair trial was impossible or that there was an abuse of process of such gravity as to warrant a permanent stay; alleged misconduct and conflicts were unsubstantiated; prosecution lawfully elected not to call the Chief Executive and Commissioner and no prejudice to trial was shown.

  • 15 Oct 2013

    SHUCHI SINGH v. ANAMIKA CHHAWAL AND OTHERS

    Citation
    SHUCHI SINGH v. ANAMIKA CHHAWAL AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA728/2013

    Refused to grant relief on contempt ground; granted interlocutory injunction in respect of statements in Annexures 27, 28 and 29 (and words to the effect that the plaintiff committed a crime or lied to the police) because those statements were plainly defamatory, lacked any viable defence on the evidence before the court and met the requirements for interim relief in defamation proceedings; ordered removal from facebook and restrained further publication until trial or further order.

  • 19 Nov 2010

    HKSAR v. NANCY ANN KISSEL

    Citation
    HKSAR v. NANCY ANN KISSEL
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCC55/2010

    Although publicity and some prosecutorial error at the first trial were substantial, the judge concluded those factors did not make a fair retrial impossible because rigorous judicial directions, warnings, trial management (including explicit prohibitions and orders regarding juror internet research) and issue-focused summing-up can neutralise prejudice; absent exceptional abuse or bad faith the affront limb is not engaged; accordingly the application for a permanent stay is refused.

  • 15 Nov 2005

    MONG HON MING v. ANTHONY YUEN

    Citation
    MONG HON MING v. ANTHONY YUEN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL137/2004

    The magistrate did not err in refusing a permanent stay because the Assistant Commissioner acted within statutory powers and without evidence of bad faith; Part III interim and full classifications were administrative and would not be conclusive or determinative of Part V criminal proceedings; any prejudice from publicity or prior classifications can be managed by trial procedure and directions; a permanent stay is an exceptional remedy not justified here.

  • 22 Mar 2001

    HKSAR v. LEE MING TEE AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LEE MING TEE AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACC8/2000

    The Court held that the Financial Secretary acting through his agents lawfully disclosed materials obtained under the Companies Ordinance to prosecuting authorities; s145(3A) validly abrogated the common law privilege and only prohibits direct use of compelled answers, and no free-standing common-law derivative use immunity exists; Article 11(2)(g) did not apply to the inspector interviews conducted before charges; despite improper official conduct and prejudicial publication, a fair trial remained possible with judicial remedies, therefore the permanent stay was wrongly ordered and must be s…

  • 8 Dec 1998

    HKSAR v. YIP KAI FOON

    Citation
    HKSAR v. YIP KAI FOON
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC139/1997

    The trial judge did not err in law or principle in refusing to stay the proceedings: he adverted to and understood the relevant material, assessed the film and press as largely sensational or fictional with only slight potential prejudicial effect, and properly concluded that emphatic judicial warnings and the circumstances (time lapse, nature of issues) could safeguard a fair jury trial; the Court of Appeal will not substitute its discretion absent demonstrated legal error or manifestly unreasonable exercise.

  • 8 Dec 1998

    HKSAR v. YIP KAI FOON

    Citation
    HKSAR v. YIP KAI FOON
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC138/1997

    The Court upheld the trial judge's refusal to stay proceedings because he considered the totality of the publicity, distinguished sensational/fictional material from serious news, applied the correct test assessing risk of serious prejudice and whether judicial warnings and lapse of time could cure it, and there was no error of law or manifestly unreasonable exercise of discretion; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and the convictions and sentences were upheld.

  • 31 Jan 1997

    R. v. YIP KAI FOON

    Citation
    R. v. YIP KAI FOON
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCC271/1996

    Application for a permanent stay was refused because the judge was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the film and magazine publicity had so seriously prejudiced potential jurors that no fair trial could be held; the publicity was sensational and in some respects false but not of such enduring or overwhelming effect as to displace the court's confidence in jurors' ability to follow directions and decide on the evidence.