Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Acquittal and costs

Legal area

Court

8 Feb 2024

香港特別行政區訴馬敬

Citation

[2024] HKDC 242
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC81/2023

The pre-trial application for a permanent stay was unnecessary and inappropriate on the facts and standards of a reasonable, competent legal practitioner; it caused additional prosecution expense and therefore, pursuant to Cap.492 s.17, the defendant must pay the prosecution the costs attributable to that application; the prosecution's obligation to pay the acquitted defendant excludes those specified costs; unresolved amounts to be taxed by the Registrar; two-counsel certificates granted for both sides.
24 Aug 2020

香港特別行政區訴陳財發

Citation

[2020] HKDC 1164
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC410/2019

Costs for counts 3–8 were refused because the defendant's mixing of personal, corporate and cross‑border accounts and inconsistent explanations invited suspicion and his conduct was self‑serving; the conviction on count 2 was closely connected to the other counts, justifying denial of costs.
24 Jul 2020

香港特別行政區訴温志成

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1712
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA172/2014

The appeal failed because the magistrate permissibly credited the police evidence that the appellant's masked, knife‑holding conduct while following two women was sufficiently suspicious to justify the forfeiture order and the refusal of costs; the prosecution's failure to prove the specific element of alarm prevented conviction but did not render the magistrate's orders unreasonable.
14 May 2020

香港特別行政區訴鄭耀揚

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 728
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA392/2019

The judge correctly exercised her discretion to refuse costs: the appellant gave inconsistent, evasive and implausible accounts about staying at an alternative lodging, admitted conduct in interview that invited suspicion, and the evidential absence of his name in the hotel's dynamic register combined with his contradictory statements justified finding he had invited suspicion and misled investigators; therefore despite acquittal the costs order was properly refused.
13 Mar 2014

HKSAR v. WING WO MACHINERY LEASING LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. WING WO MACHINERY LEASING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA756/2013

The evidence was not sufficiently clear to establish that the crane operator's knowledge, acts or omissions could be attributed to the appellant company and the prosecution therefore failed to make out a satisfactory basis to deprive the acquitted company of its costs; the appeal against refusal to award costs is allowed.
16 May 2013

KULEMESIN YURIY AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR

Citation

KULEMESIN YURIY AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC7/2012

2nd Appellant was awarded costs here and below including the trial because there were no positive reasons to deny costs: the early statements were of little weight, contemporaneous objective evidence (VTS radar, voice data recorder, video) meant his conduct did not mislead the prosecution, and the Court of Appeal should not have deprived him of costs; certificates for two counsel were granted.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 馬敬

香港特別行政區 訴 陳財發

香港特別行政區 訴 温志成

香港特別行政區 訴 鄭耀揚

HKSAR v. WING WO MACHINERY LEASING LTD

KULEMESIN YURIY AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR

香港特別行政區訴馬敬

香港特別行政區訴陳財發

香港特別行政區訴温志成

香港特別行政區訴鄭耀揚