29 Apr 2020
HKSAR v. GURUNG, SANDIP AND OTHERS
- Citation
- [2020] HKCFI 458
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA535/2018
The appeal court held that the magistrate was entitled to refuse costs to D2 and D3 because their voluntary records of interview contained answers that legitimately raised suspicion; however the magistrate erred as to D1 by relying on an excluded record of interview that had been excluded on voluntariness grounds (not merely procedural or technical grounds), and therefore that excluded statement could not be used to refuse costs — D1 is entitled to costs for Charges 1 and 3, taxed if not agreed.