Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Acquittal

Legal area

Court

21 May 2026

HKSAR v. JAHANGIR ADIL AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKDC 782
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC421/2025

Although an acquitted defendant is normally entitled to costs, the court exercised its discretion to refuse costs because D1's behaviour during the investigation gave rise to suspicion and misled the prosecution into believing the case against him was stronger; moreover the prosecution had admissible s79C evidence and a positive identification parade forming a legitimate basis for proceeding, so positive reasons existed to deny costs.
21 Apr 2026

HKSAR v. WONG WAI TAK BILL

Citation

[2026] HKDC 718
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC887/2023

Because the prosecution had no evidence of dangerous manoeuvre or traffic contravention, no collision was found, and the defendant's admissions only showed failure to keep proper lookout which does not amount to dangerous driving, the defendant did not bring suspicion on himself; therefore costs are payable to the defence and ordered to be taxed if not agreed.
21 Jan 2026

香港特別行政區訴黃景鎏

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 405
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA260/2025

The trial judge erred by relying on the appellant’s ambiguous WhatsApp apology (P1(14)) as a clear admission while having rejected the complainant’s evidence; read in context the message did not amount to an unequivocal admission of a touching constituting the charged offence, and therefore there was no proper basis to withhold costs under Cap.492 s.3 — appeal allowed and costs awarded.
30 Oct 2025

HKSAR v. KWOK TSUN NING

Citation

[2025] HKCA 955
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC160/2025

Extension of time refused because the prosecution was out of time by about one month, the section-level decision against further action weighed heavily against the belated division-level change of stance, the explanation for the delay was not cogent, and the intended appeal lacked sufficient merit (the acquittal was not obviously perverse and any conviction for dangerous driving was likely reducible to careless driving).
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.
6 Aug 2024

CHO KWAI CHEE v. HKSAR

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1999
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL285/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted but on substantive review the application was dismissed: the trial judge had correctly identified and applied the legal principles, and it was not irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable to take D1's pre-investigation and meeting conduct into account as a positive reason to refuse costs; accordingly no relief was warranted and the prosecution's costs were ordered against D1.
30 Apr 2024

HKSAR v. CLEMENT, RICHARD MARK

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 204
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA445/2022

Appeal allowed and conviction quashed; because the acquittal was on the merits, the appellant did not mislead the prosecution nor behave reprehensibly and was not acquitted on a technicality, the court ordered that the costs of the lower court hearing and of the appeal be paid to the appellant, to be taxed if not agreed.
1 Mar 2024

HKSAR v. CHAN KI FUNG

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 664
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC196/2021

The court exercised its discretion to award the prosecution the quantified costs of preparing written submissions ($3,280.00) because those costs were incurred and not disputed, but limited the award by the defendant's means and excluded any costs for an unnecessary hearing; accordingly the defendant was ordered to pay $3,280.00 within six months.
11 Dec 2023

香港特別行政區訴趙浩宏

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1776
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC36/2023

The court acquitted the defendant because the prosecution failed to disprove self-defence beyond reasonable doubt and the two principal prosecution witnesses were found not credible; the defendant made no admissions and the acquittal was not technical, therefore the prosecution must pay the defendant's costs.
14 Mar 2023

HKSAR v. LCMB

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 692
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC8/2022

The court exercised its discretion in favour of the acquitted defendant and ordered that he be awarded his costs of the proceedings from the Kwun Tong Magistracy including the preliminary inquiry; the court declined to deprive the defendant of costs on the grounds advanced by the prosecution (including in relation to alibi notice and the stay/quash application) because the defendant's conduct did not justify deprivation and the prosecution's complaints did not establish serious prejudice or abuse warranting denial of costs.