Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 84 district court ordinance

Legal area

Court

15 Jul 2025

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. KO KIN MING

Citation

[2025] HKCA 674
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC47/2025

The court exercised its discretion under section 84 to grant an extension of time to the Secretary for Justice because the 17-day delay was not substantial, there was a point of law capable of being raised on a case stated (an alleged irrational acquittal), and the balancing of delay, reasons, merits/public interest and prejudice favored granting the extension; accordingly the Secretary for Justice may file the case stated out of time.
10 Feb 2023

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAW HIU FUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 177
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC13/2023

The judge refused the s.84(b) application because the proposed case stated was broadly framed and impermissibly amounted to a challenge to factual findings the trial judge was best placed to make; there was no clear and obvious error of law or realistic prospect of success, the respondents had complied with long‑standing bail conditions, the offences were at the lower end of gravity, and arrest or further restriction would be neither necessary nor proportionate to preserve the appeal.
5 Mar 2003

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FAN KIN CHUNG

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FAN KIN CHUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC381/2002

Although the judge erred in principle by stopping the prosecution before the final witness was called, the remaining evidence could not have materially altered the outcome; there were no sufficient grounds to interfere with the acquittal, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the District Court orders stand.
24 Jun 1999

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAM TAT MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAM TAT MING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC615/1998

Section 84 permits the Attorney General to appeal an acquittal on a matter of law even where the prosecution, following a judge's erroneous exclusion of vital evidence, elects to offer no further evidence and an acquittal is entered; there is no legislative requirement of a direct causal link or that the prosecution must continue a futile trial, and a plea of autrefois acquit does not bar such an appeal in these circumstances.

Hong Kong Case Law

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. KO KIN MING

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAW HIU FUNG AND OTHERS

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FAN KIN CHUNG

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAM TAT MING AND ANOTHER