Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Private prosecution

Legal area

Court

17 Jan 2025

SINO MORAL LTD v. MAGISTRATE WAT LAI MAN MINNIE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 236
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1078/2023

The court held that Mr Siu was the real party to the Leave Application because he controlled and directed the proceedings and stood to benefit personally; the Applicant had no independent interest, so it was just to vary the Costs Order to make Sino Moral Limited and Siu See Kong jointly and severally liable for costs, to be summarily assessed with specified directions.
3 Nov 2023

SINO MORAL LTD v. MAGISTRATE WAT LAI MAN MINNIE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2811
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1078/2023

Leave refused because the applicant relied on an irrelevant and unparticularised Basic Law provision; there was no evidence of a prima facie case of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice; the Magistrate's refusal was reasonable (not Wednesbury unreasonable); the Department of Justice had already declined prosecution making the exercise futile; and the repeated identical application amounted to abuse of process warranting refusal and costs.
31 Mar 2022

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 863
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA198/2021

The appeal was dismissed as improperly constituted because a magistrate's ex parte refusal to issue a summons is not a conviction, order or determination appealable under s113 and instead is amenable to judicial review; alternatively, the magistrate did not err in refusing the summonses for lack of a prima facie case or because the applications were improper.
11 Oct 2021

KWOK TAK YING v. HKSAR

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1491
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA216/2020

The right to private prosecution is compatible with Basic Law article 63 when read with article 35 because it is a qualified right subject to SJ control; a magistrate deciding whether to issue a private summons must apply the prima facie test to determine sufficiency of evidence; procedural guidance for magistrates was provided; statutory appeal routes under ss104,105,113 do not apply to refusals to issue private summonses and judicial review is the appropriate remedy; the magistrate did not err in refusing the summons on the materials before him, so the appeal fails.
7 May 2021

HUI CHI FUNG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1208
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2270/2020

Although the applicant, as private prosecutor, prima facie had sufficient interest to seek leave, the court exercised its discretion to refuse leave because the applicant had absconded, provided misleading information to procure travel permission (constituting contempt and criminality), and his conduct would bring the administration of justice into disrepute such that granting leave would be an abuse of process and an affront to public conscience.
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

HCMA310/2019

The Magistrate properly exercised discretion under s8 to refuse to issue the private summonses because the appellant failed to supply particulars, materials or evidence showing the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were prima facie present; Article 10 did not apply to this preliminary exercise so no public hearing or public pronouncement was required; no actual or apparent bias was established; accordingly the appeals are dismissed.
31 Jul 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1238
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA195/2019

The magistrate properly exercised her discretion under s.8 of the Magistrates Ordinance to refuse to issue private summonses because the appellant produced only bare allegations without material establishing the essential ingredients of the alleged offences prima facie; Article 10 of the Bill of Rights did not require a public hearing for such interlocutory decisions; ss.21 and 22 cannot be used to compel CCTV before summonses are issued; substituted service under s.115(4)(c) was valid — appeals dismissed.