Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Referral to director of public prosecutions

Legal area

Court

2 Feb 2024

KAMRAN JAVID v. PERMANENT SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 360
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL592/2023

The variation application was dismissed: because the applicant had sought and received a rolled-up hearing and had a full substantive hearing yet failed on all grounds, costs should follow the event; accordingly the applicant must pay the putative respondent's costs (to be taxed if not agreed) with a certificate allowing two counsel; no order as to costs of the variation application; deadlines set for summary assessment; papers referred to the DPP concerning alleged false evidence.
10 Feb 2015

TSANG CHIU WING FLORENCE (also known as LI TSANG, CHIU WING FLORENCE) v. LI KIN KAN SAMATHUR

Citation

TSANG CHIU WING FLORENCE (also known as LI TSANG, CHIU WING FLORENCE) v. LI KIN KAN SAMATHUR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV35/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because even if a jurisdiction to review a first instance judge's referral to the DPP exists, the referral was effectively irreversible and there was no practical benefit to granting leave; significant corrective orders and restrictions had already been made (forgery findings set aside, DPP's use restricted, privilege issues remitted) rendering the application academic and an inappropriate use of this Court's leave jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeal's characterisation of referrals as not appealable in the circumstances was not shown to warrant leave.
10 Feb 2015

TSANG CHIU WING FLORENCE (also known as LI TSANG, CHIU WING FLORENCE) v. LI KIN KAN SAMATHUR

Citation

TSANG CHIU WING FLORENCE (also known as LI TSANG, CHIU WING FLORENCE) v. LI KIN KAN SAMATHUR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV34/2014

Even if jurisdiction to review a first instance judge's referral to the DPP exists, such jurisdiction is discretionary and fact specific; in this case the referral could not be reversed, remedial measures (set aside of forgery findings, orders restricting DPP access, remittal of privilege issues) neutralized the applicant's complained-of prejudice, and the application was therefore academic and unjustified — leave to appeal was refused with costs.
10 Jun 2014

TCWF v. LKKS

Citation

TCWF v. LKKS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV166/2012

Leave to appeal was refused because the questions were either not reasonably arguable, were fact‑specific or premised on incorrect factual assumptions, or did not raise issues of great general or public importance; completed referral to the DPP is a matter for the prosecuting authority; many contested issues (including LPP disclosure) should be pursued by appropriate remedies against the DPP or in properly framed proceedings rather than by leave applications to the CFA.
10 Jun 2014

TCWF v. LKKS

Citation

TCWF v. LKKS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV154/2012

Leave to appeal was refused because the questions advanced were either fact‑specific, premised on incorrect factual assumptions, not of sufficient general or public importance, raised issues not properly arguable on the existing record (including new grounds not argued below), or concerned matters (such as referral to the DPP) that are not properly the subject of appellate review; consequently none of the proposed questions satisfied the threshold for leave and the Notices of Motion were dismissed with costs.
10 Jan 2014

TCWF v. LKKS

Citation

TCWF v. LKKS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV166/2012

Court allowed appeal in part: findings of forgery/perjury and conspiracy based on SP1 and collateral evidence were set aside because procedural irregularity (admissibility and failure to prove documents) and estoppel/res judicata arising from the February 2011 compromise meant those issues were not properly before the ancillary relief trial; apparent bias not established; referral to DPP by judge is not appealable and was permissible; father\'s contractual rights under the Framework Agreement and Special Articles had to be taken into account at the asset‑ascertainment stage and could not be d…
10 Jan 2014

TCWF v. LKKS

Citation

TCWF v. LKKS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV154/2012

Key holdings: (1) No sustainable apparent bias; judge did not have to recuse for the ancillary relief trial. (2) Findings of forgery and perjury based on SP1 were set aside because documents were not properly admissible/ proved and because compromise (23 Feb 2011) operated as res judicata/estoppel to preclude re-litigation of forgery in ancillary relief; those specific findings cannot stand. (3) Referral of the judgment to the DPP is not appealable and was within judicial practice; language used was not improper. (4) Fathers contractual rights under the Framework Agreement and Special Articl…
29 Jul 2013

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FTCW AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FTCW AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV107/2013

The summonses for hearing the Disclosure Appeals in camera were dismissed: the public interest in open administration of justice and prosecutorial transparency outweighs the applicants' claims; there was no suggestion of bias or impropriety by Ng J and no sufficient basis to depart from open justice in the Disclosure Appeals.
29 Jul 2013

TCWF v. LKKS

Citation

TCWF v. LKKS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV154/2012

The Court held the applications to hear the appeals in camera must be dismissed: the public interest in open justice and the right to a public hearing outweigh claims of privacy and commercial confidentiality in the circumstances; redaction/publication disputes do not independently justify secret appellate hearings; less intrusive measures (anonymity, redaction, undertakings, injunctions) and the wife's irrevocable undertaking suffice to protect legitimate interests, so the appeals shall be heard in open court.
27 Jun 2000

LAM CHIK CHEUNG v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHWAYS AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAM CHIK CHEUNG v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHWAYS AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1003/1998

The judge found that the plaintiff and two witnesses had fabricated evidence and effectively conspired to pervert the course of justice, an abuse of process which justified awarding costs on an indemnity basis; the court nonetheless expressly declined to criticise the plaintiff's solicitors and counsel.