Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Presumption of innocence

Legal area

Court

21 Oct 2025

香港特別行政區訴鄭志軒

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5867
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA294/2024

The court refused the certificate under s32(2) because the contested issues do not raise points of law of great and general importance: the legal principles governing judicial assistance to unrepresented defendants at sentencing and the scope of consideration under s63(7) are already settled by existing authorities; the present dispute is application of settled law to facts, not a novel legal question.
14 Mar 2025

香港特別行政區訴潘永亨

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2390
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA289/2024

The magistrate properly conducted the special‑matters inquiry, accepted PW2’s evidence as credible in light of having seen and heard him, lawfully found the appellant’s admissions to be voluntary, and permissibly considered the appellant’s conduct and admissions as giving rise to self‑incriminatory suspicion that misled the prosecution; absent clear error the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion, so the refusal of costs is upheld.
11 Dec 2024

香港特別行政區訴必高工程有限公司及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 662
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA491/2023

The magistrate properly exercised discretion to deny costs because independent and objectively credible photographic evidence supported a finding of self-invited suspicion or conduct that reasonably led the prosecution to bring charges; refusal of costs did not breach the presumption of innocence because withdrawal was due to an unavailable key witness and the court may consider background independent evidence in a costs decision.
12 Sept 2024

CHAN YAT CHUEN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2360
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL204/2024

The court found that the SG's categorical conclusion that there was no serious default by the ICAC or Prosecution was Wednesbury irrational because the Court of Appeal's criticisms of the prosecution, properly read, identified flaws amounting to serious default or high negligence which the SG impermissibly downplayed. The court nevertheless held that the SG's finding that there was serious doubt about the Applicant's innocence was rationally open to him on the available circumstantial evidence, and that rights to silence and presumption of innocence do not preclude administrative consideratio…
12 Jun 2024

HKSAR v. TSIM SUM KIT, ADA

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 14
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC1/2024

Section 3(2) of the Homicide Ordinance does not engage or derogate from the presumption of innocence because diminished responsibility is a partial defence that only arises after the prosecution has proved the actus reus and mens rea of murder beyond reasonable doubt; alternatively, even if the presumption were engaged, the imposition of a legal burden on the accused is a proportionate and justified limitation given the practical impossibility for the prosecution to disprove the accused's mental state beyond reasonable doubt, therefore s.3(2) stands and the appeal is dismissed.
1 Feb 2024

香港特別行政區訴趙淑儀

Citation

[2024] HKDC 126
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC320/2022

Although the defendant was acquitted, the court refused the costs application because the totality of her conduct — charging significant fees, providing treatments substantially similar to Western medical practice as supported by expert evidence, conducting consultations and some treatments in a premises containing equipment appearing medical, and failing to offer any explanation during investigation — amounted to bringing suspicion upon herself, permitting exercise of the court's discretion to deny costs.
18 Dec 2023

HKSAR v. TSIM SUM KIT, ADA

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 45
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC38/2023

The court granted leave to appeal solely on the discrete constitutional question whether s3(2) of the Homicide Ordinance unjustifiably derogates the presumption of innocence and may need to be read down to an evidential burden because that question is of requisite importance and reasonably arguable; the court refused leave on the lies direction question because it did not properly arise on the facts and was not reasonably arguable that the trial judge departed from accepted norms.
30 Aug 2023

HKSAR v. TSIM SUM-KIT, ADA

Citation

[2023] HKCA 927
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC153/2021

The legal burden imposed by section 3(2) to prove diminished responsibility does not engage the presumption of innocence in a way that invalidates the provision, and even if it did it is justified and proportionate in light of the legitimate aim; existing authorities properly govern when lies directions are required and no certificate on either point of law is warranted.
12 May 2023

HKSAR v. JAVED, SHAHID

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1179
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA218/2022

The court upheld the magistrate's exercise of discretion: the magistrate properly considered the appellant's conduct (allowing insurance to lapse for six months, failing to produce the policy after promising to do so, and not alleging theft or sale) which constituted a positive reason to refuse costs; there was no error of law or misapplication of the presumption of innocence, and the refusal of costs was therefore justified.
7 Mar 2023

HKSAR v. ELTHAF, CHAUDHRY MUHAMMAD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 694
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA231/2022

The magistrate lawfully exercised her discretion to refuse costs; independent material (CCTV and WhatsApp messages) and the appellant's conduct prior to investigation constituted positive reasons to deprive him of costs for both the withdrawn rape charge and the acquittal on indecent assault, and the Court of First Instance upheld that exercise of discretion.