Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Trafficking in persons

Legal area

Court

19 Aug 2025

NASIWA SARAH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3324
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL864/2025

The Director's refusal of the subsequent claim was lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable because the applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances and her credibility was undermined by discrepancies and non-disclosure; accordingly there was no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused; an RPO was warranted to prevent abuse of process.
15 Aug 2025

LN v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3604
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1090/2022

The court held that the applicant's challenge was, on the material facts, an abusive collateral attack on the criminal conviction because the TIP claim depended on factual assertions (lack of knowledge/deception) already rejected in criminal proceedings; Grounds challenging the Operational Practice and abuse were considered but failed on substantive review; the reasons ground was initially arguable because the decision letter lacked detail but became academic once fuller reasons were disclosed; overall the application is dismissed.
11 Jun 2025

CB v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE, SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

Citation

[2025] HKCFA 10
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV1/2025

Where a breach of BOR4(3) investigative duties is found the court must assess remedies on a fact-specific basis; enactment of bespoke criminal legislation criminalising forced labour is required only if it is the 'only effective solution' to provide practical and effective protection of BOR4 rights; on the facts (investigative failures relating to investigation of other FDHs and prosecutorial history) bespoke legislation was not shown to be the only effective solution and therefore is not mandated; appeal dismissed.
22 Apr 2022

CB v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1046
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL617/2021

AM's application for leave was dismissed as time‑barred and lacking sufficient merit given delay and destroyed records; CB succeeded on grounds that police screening and investigative decisions were legally defective and investigations were prematurely curtailed in breach of BOR4 procedural duties, quashing the 2nd TIP Decision and Forced Labour Decision and remitting the matters for renewed investigation; the court found a causal connection between investigative failures and the absence of bespoke legislation criminalising forced labour in Hong Kong sufficient to warrant a declaration and ur…
29 Sept 2021

CB v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3142
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL617/2021

Court allowed the applicant to amend Form 86; declined to grant leave to apply for judicial review at this stage and adjourned the summons for leave; refused discovery for category 1 based on the officer's affirmation of non-existence of further documents; ordered discovery of categories 2 and 3 (written statements/VRI by the accused and unused prosecution materials) as relevant to whether BOR 4 duties were fulfilled, while leaving directions for further conduct to be determined.
31 Mar 2021

HKSAR v. SIU SIK KWAN

Citation

[2021] HKCA 463
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC250/2007

The application for extension of time and leave to appeal was refused because the applicant provided no reasonable or satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay (having voluntarily absconded from trial) and the underlying grounds of appeal lacked merit; the sentencing judge's approach and reasoning were unimpeachable.
29 Dec 2016

HKSAR v. KHAMPUANBUT LA IAT

Citation

HKSAR v. KHAMPUANBUT LA IAT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC247/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court was satisfied that the overall sentence of 18 months imprisonment was not wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive given the number of offences, the applicant's significant organising and operating role across two vice establishments, the duration of operation, and the number of victims; the notional starting point and plea reductions were within appropriate sentencing bounds.
2 Mar 2005

HKSAR v. LAU CHI YUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU CHI YUI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC148/2004

The court held that the cumulative circumstantial evidence — D1's role in arranging documents and travel, introductions to D2 and D3, shared travel and presence in Japan, involvement in meeting the proprietress, PW1's uncontradicted evidence of sexual services for customers and D1's post-offence telephone urging concealment of his identity — supported only the inference that the applicants participated in taking PW1 out of Hong Kong for the purpose of prostitution; D3's presence and actions demonstrated knowledge and assistance; therefore convictions and three-year sentences were upheld.
22 Jul 2002

HKSAR v. YEE YIU SAM

Citation

HKSAR v. YEE YIU SAM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC530/2001

The court held that although a judge cannot lawfully sentence on the basis of non-consent equivalent to conviction under section 118A where the prosecution accepted a plea to section 118D in the alternative and left the non-consent count on the file, the judge may examine the framework and circumstances in which consent was given (age disparity, dominance, control) as aggravating factors; on the facts the starting point and sentence were not manifestly excessive and the sentence was upheld.
15 Oct 1991

THE QUEEN v. SOONTHORN CHOOKIAT PRAVIT

Citation

THE QUEEN v. SOONTHORN CHOOKIAT PRAVIT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC301/1991

Given the international element and seriousness of trafficking a starting point of two years imprisonment was appropriate and a six month discount for the guilty plea was appropriate, producing an 18 month sentence which the Court affirmed and refused leave to appeal against.