Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Administration of justice

Legal area

Court

4 Jun 2022

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TANG LIN LING

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2467
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2925/2015

Unlawful taking of photographs inside court constitutes criminal contempt because it risks juror and witness anonymity and safety, disrupts court proceedings and public resources, and enables misuse of images; applying these principles and the respondent's lack of intent but demonstrated disruption and partial remorse, a custodial sentence of 7 days' imprisonment is appropriate to punish and deter.
11 Oct 2019

HKSAR v. TAI YIU TING

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1144
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC128/2019

Public policy and the interest of due administration of justice require convicted appellants to remain within the jurisdiction unless they demonstrate highly exceptional circumstances; the applicant failed to meet that burden and therefore the bail condition prohibiting leaving Hong Kong could not be varied to permit overseas travel, so the application was refused.
19 Jan 2018

AGACER JAMES C v. TANG SAI KEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 69
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI916/2014

The application for non-party discovery was dismissed because the sole remaining request (reported residential address) failed the necessity limb of the test given available alternatives (substituted service or default judgment), the Immigration Department legitimately declined consent under privacy considerations, and disclosure would unjustifiably risk privacy and produce a floodgate effect; accordingly the discretionary power to order discovery was refused and costs awarded to the non-party.
14 Apr 2004

SINO WOOD INVESTMENT LTD v. WONG KAM YIN

Citation

SINO WOOD INVESTMENT LTD v. WONG KAM YIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA307/2002

Service was valid by touching and informing the defendant; the penal notice endorsed on the served order sufficiently notified consequences despite the defendant's refusal to read; presenting identity to immigration and entering restricted departure area amounted to commencing the act of leaving Hong Kong and therefore constituted civil contempt; Mr Lee committed criminal contempt by assaulting and physically preventing the process server from effecting service; translation was not required absent evidence of lack of English proficiency; committal proceedings are warranted and parties to appe…
13 Jun 1997

R. v. WONG KWAI NAM

Citation

R. v. WONG KWAI NAM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC449/1996

The Court held that given the calculated, deliberate nature of the offences targeting the administration of justice and high-ranking officials, the sentences were proportionate; no error in principle or manifest excess was shown and the application to vary the sentences was refused.
27 Oct 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL V.PHAM LUONG TUE

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL V.PHAM LUONG TUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3380/1993

Given the substantial public interest in ensuring a major criminal trial proceeds with all relevant evidence and the reasonable prospect that the respondents could give evidence within the next 12 weeks, the judge exercised his discretion to grant detention under s32(4)(b) for a limited period (not exceeding 21 days from 8 October 1993), finding that the necessity for the administration of justice outweighed the respondents' liberty interests in the circumstances.
27 Oct 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. HOANG VAN DIEN

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. HOANG VAN DIEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3367/1993

Balancing the strong public interest in securing witnesses for a major criminal trial against the respondents' liberty, the judge found a reasonable prospect that the respondents could give evidence within about 12 weeks and that a short, defined further detention (21 days from 8 October 1993) was proportionate and lawful under s32(4)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance.
27 Oct 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL V. PHAM THI XA

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL V. PHAM THI XA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3371/1993

Balancing the significant public interest in securing admissible evidence for a major criminal trial against the respondents' personal liberty, the court found there was a reasonable prospect the respondents would give evidence within a reasonable time (assumed by court to be by end of December) and therefore lawfully exercised its discretion to order detention under s.32(4)(b) for a further period not exceeding 21 days from 8 October 1993.
27 Oct 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL V. PHUNG VAN TOAN

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL V. PHUNG VAN TOAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3382/1993

The Court held that on the facts the public interest in ensuring availability of relevant prosecution witnesses for a major criminal trial outweighed the respondents' interest in immediate repatriation; there was a reasonable prospect the respondents would give evidence within the next 12 weeks, and therefore detention orders under s32(4)(b) for a period not exceeding 21 days from 8 October 1993 were lawful and should be granted for the 20 applicants.
27 Oct 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL V HOANG VAN DIEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL V HOANG VAN DIEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3385/1993

On balance the public interest in ensuring a major criminal trial proceeds with all relevant evidence available outweighs the respondents' liberty interest; given a realistic prospect that the respondents will give evidence within the near future (assessed as by end of December) a short detention of up to 21 days from 8 October 1993 under s32(4)(b) is lawful and justified, subject to reassessment on further application.