Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay of criminal proceedings

Legal area

Court

18 Jan 2013

CHENG KELLY KIT YIN AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

CHENG KELLY KIT YIN AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL127/2012

The judge accepted prosecutorial independence, found deleted documents were recovered and irrelevant, found no sufficient evidence of bad faith or that the integrity of the criminal justice system was irreparably harmed, and held the applicants failed the arguability test; leave for judicial review was refused.
3 May 2012

RE JONATHAN MICHAEL CAPLAN QC

Citation

RE JONATHAN MICHAEL CAPLAN QC
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP745/2012

The court granted admission because the stay application raises issues of sufficient legal significance and novelty relating to alleged third‑party prompted abusive acts by government agencies and prosecutorial independence under the Basic Law such that admitting an overseas counsel of high standing would serve the public interest in developing local jurisprudence and maintaining international recognition and a strong independent Bar.
29 Jul 2008

CHIK WEN FEI AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

CHIK WEN FEI AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV141/2008

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused and the appeal dismissed because the applicants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify collateral judicial review of ongoing criminal proceedings; the alleged administrative confusion over case numbers caused no prejudice to the applicants and did not defeat the District Court's jurisdiction; matters could be addressed on appeal and allowing leave would risk delay and abuse of process.
18 May 2007

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. SHUM CHIU AND ANOTHER

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. SHUM CHIU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV50/2006

The court refused to certify the proposed points under section 32 because the questions were either already addressed, premature or fact‑specific; the proper course is to remit the matter to the District Court to hear the contested evidence about the authorities' recording and its justification rather than lay down categorical legal rules on privilege or automatic stays.
30 Mar 2006

YEUNG CHUN PONG AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

YEUNG CHUN PONG AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV368/2005

Rejection of a properly defined plea of autrefois acquit may, in narrow and well defined circumstances, be subject to collateral judicial review, but mere failure of such a plea will not automatically justify interrupting criminal proceedings; where the plea is arguable and the right invoked is fundamental an application for leave to judicially review should not be summarily set aside in favour of waiting for appeal.
27 Jul 1999

HKSAR v. NG PAK MIN

Citation

HKSAR v. NG PAK MIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL70/1999

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the issues raised were within the magistrate's competence, the charge and summary of facts provided sufficient particulars to constitute an arguable case for trial, there were no exceptional grounds to stop proceedings by judicial review and the application was devoid of merit.
25 Jun 1999

KWAI CHI ON v. KWAN TIT ON DANIEL AND ANOTHER

Citation

KWAI CHI ON v. KWAN TIT ON DANIEL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL55/1999

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant did not have a sufficient interest to challenge the judge's decision to stay criminal proceedings; non-parties generally lack standing to contest substantive criminal orders and the recognised exceptions are limited to ancillary matters such as press freedom or access to court information.
9 Jan 1997

WONG SHE WAI v. CHENG MAN NGOK and Others

Citation

WONG SHE WAI v. CHENG MAN NGOK and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP26/1997

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted because an arguable case existed that Judge Beesons consolidation order and/or its invalidation by Judge Longley raised questions about the correct construction of s.24B and jurisdictional power; however, because of prejudice from halting an ongoing trial and the applicants delay, the court refused to stay the trial already in progress (No.589) but ordered stays of the other three trials pending determination and set expedited procedural timetables.
6 Jan 1997

AARON PATRICK NATTRASS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

AARON PATRICK NATTRASS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV230/1996

Leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused because no practical remedy could be granted (Judge Caird was effectively unavailable and Judge Beeson's administrative listing decision could not produce any meaningful benefit if set aside), and judicial review cannot be used to obtain the decision challenged; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
26 Jul 1995

In re TSANG YUK KIU

Citation

In re TSANG YUK KIU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV162/1995

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate that Saied J wrongly exercised his discretion in imposing the condition that leave be granted by originating summons in chambers, and any speculative objection to a chambers hearing could be addressed by the judge hearing the application; therefore there were no grounds for appellate interference.