Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Right to fair trial

Legal area

Court

3 May 2024

香港特別行政區訴葉志偉

Citation

[2024] HKCA 427
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC97/2023

The court dismissed the leave application because the trial judge lawfully and independently considered both possible legal bases for the termination application, the defence failed on either approach, and the judge’s factual finding that the applicant had no reasonable grounds to believe the funds were legitimate was open to be made on the evidence; the deceased witness’ evidence would not have altered that conclusion.
8 Feb 2021

HKSAR v. ADJEI ROBERT (also known as ADJEI KING)

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 266
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC2/2019

The application for a permanent stay was refused because the defendant failed on the balance of probabilities to show that a fair trial had become impossible; the court found a suitable interpreter could be located with time, the key witness had demonstrated willingness to attend, material evidence existed (CCTV and phone photographs) and remedial measures including adjournment were adequate to secure a fair trial rather than ordering a stay.
3 Oct 2019

HKSAR v. TSIM HIU YEE

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1097
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC154/2017

The conviction was quashed because the failure of the defence (and compounding failures by the prosecution) to place a Customs forensic report and recovered deleted messages before the jury — messages which tended to show the appellant believed she was carrying ivory powder — amounted to flagrant incompetence and deprived the appellant of a fair trial, rendering the conviction unsafe and not curable by the proviso.
1 Feb 2019

HKSAR v. YU LIK WAI WILLIAM AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCA 135
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC237/2015

Section 61 of the ICSO as a whole pursues legitimate aims and is, in substance, constitutional; however the procedure in s61(4) that places an initial gatekeeping disclosure decision solely with the investigating department (before the prosecution sees any extant information) is more than necessary and incompatible with the prosecution’s constitutional role in securing a fair trial — remedial interpretation should require departments to disclose extant interception‑derived information to the prosecution so the prosecutor can apply the s61(4) test and, if necessary, disclose to the judge ex pa…
10 Nov 2017

RE MAHESH J ROY

Citation

RE MAHESH J ROY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV226/2015

Appeal allowed and conviction set aside because the presiding officer failed to provide sufficient particulars of the charge, failed to hear and consider the live defence of lack of wilfulness and the appellant's apology, and failed to give reasoned findings; these procedural defects rendered the summary process unfair and unsafe. The Court held that presiding officers may hear interruption contempt but must afford minimum fair process and give reasons. Costs of the appeal were ordered against the Secretary for Justice.
17 Mar 2017

HKSAR v. BRAIN, ALFRED HALL, aka BRIAN ALFRED HALL, aka ASANTE JOHN OS

Citation

HKSAR v. BRAIN, ALFRED HALL, aka BRIAN ALFRED HALL, aka ASANTE JOHN OS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA555/2013

The magistrate's credibility findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence; the Important Notice was not shown to be authentic and issues of forgery had been properly decided in earlier proceedings; prior convictions were admissible for impeachment; appellant was not deprived of a fair trial by lack of retained counsel; disclosure requests were irrelevant; therefore convictions were affirmed and appeal dismissed.
30 Dec 2016

YBL v. LWC

Citation

YBL v. LWC
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV244/2015

Rule 87 and Form 23 as drafted contain features incompatible with Articles 10 and 11 HKBoR: examination and committal must be segregated; judgment summons used to initiate committal must set out factual particulars showing the debtor had means to pay; burden and standard of proof remain on the judgment creditor (beyond reasonable doubt); automatic committal on non-attendance is unlawful; common law privilege against self-incrimination is abrogated insofar as it would prevent compelled answers about means in an examination intended to enforce a judgment debt, and compelled answers may be used…
27 Jul 2015

HKSAR v. MARK RICHARD CHARLTON SUTHERLAND

Citation

HKSAR v. MARK RICHARD CHARLTON SUTHERLAND
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA425/2014

Judge concluded there was an appearance of justice requiring recusal from contentious matters and directed under s118(1)(d) Magistrates Ordinance that both appeals (HCMA 685/2013 and HCMA 425/2014) be argued before the Court of Appeal because they arise from the same subject matter, raise common and important issues concerning counsel conduct and wasted costs orders that warrant appellate determination; consolidation to be decided by the Court of Appeal; anonymity application reserved to the Court of Appeal; costs reserved with a certificate for two counsel.
18 Nov 2013

香港特別行政區訴李國華

Citation

香港特別行政區訴李國華
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC30/2011

The Court refused to issue a certificate under s32 because the application was out of time without a satisfactory explanation, the applicant had been informed of the deadlines, relevant legal points had been considered and rejected at earlier stages (and some were not raised earlier), and only the Court of Final Appeal may decide on substantial and grave unfairness; therefore there was no reasonable prospect warranting certification.
29 Jul 2013

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FTCW AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FTCW AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV101/2013

The Court held that the Disclosure Appeals must be heard in open court; Ng J's orders granting access and leave to confer with prosecutorial and investigative authorities are matters of public interest and do not justify hearing the appeals in camera. A judicial referral does not automatically carry special weight to warrant closed proceedings and the independence of police and DPP in deciding whether to investigate must be preserved.