Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Attempt to pervert the course of justice

Legal area

Court

31 Jul 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1239
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA197/2019

The Magistrate correctly refused to issue the private summonses because the appellant failed to provide sufficient particulars or evidence to show the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were prima facie present; statutory provisions relied upon by the appellant (s44 Crimes Ordinance and ss21/22 Magistrates Ordinance) do not empower the Magistrate to obtain records or compel production prior to issuance of summonses; there was no demonstrated actual or apparent bias and Article 10 was not engaged; appeals dismissed.
21 May 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 841
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA591/2019

The magistrate correctly refused the application because the appellant failed to provide particulars to establish the essential ingredients of the offence; there was no evidence of bias or unfair hearing, and the appellant had been given proper notice and failed to attend, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
21 May 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 845
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA603/2019

The magistrate rightly refused the application because the appellant failed to provide any particulars establishing the essential ingredients of the alleged offence; there was adequate notice of the hearing by registered post and no evidence of bias or unfair hearing, therefore the appeal is wholly devoid of merit and is dismissed.
21 May 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 844
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA602/2019

The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate properly exercised her discretion in refusing the private summons when the appellant failed to provide particulars establishing the essential ingredients of the alleged offence, there was no evidential basis for bias, and the appellant had been given notice of the hearing and did not attend, rendering the appeal devoid of merit.
21 May 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 837
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA23/2020

The appeal is dismissed because the magistrate had good cause to refuse the private summons application as the appellant failed to provide particulars establishing the essential ingredients of the alleged offence, there was no evidence of bias, and the appellant had been given notice of the hearing.
21 May 2020

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 838
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA22/2020

The magistrate correctly refused the application for a private summons because the appellant failed to provide any particulars establishing the essential elements of the alleged offence; there was no evidence of judicial bias or denial of a fair hearing, proper notice of the appeal hearing was given, and the appeal is wholly without merit, accordingly it is dismissed.
2 Nov 2018

HKSAR v. LEW MON HUNG

Citation

[2018] HKCFA 48
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC50/2018

The Court granted leave to appeal on the pivotal question whether the prosecution must prove that the person approached could lawfully stop or interfere with an investigation to establish an attempt to pervert the course of justice; it certified ancillary constitutional and administrative law questions concerning the ICAC Commissioner's and the Chief Executive's operational discretion under common law versus the statutory mandatory duty in s12(b) of the ICAC Ordinance, to be addressed only if the primary question is answered affirmatively; leave on the substantial and grave injustice ground w…
20 Jun 2016

CRANE WORLD ASIA PTE LTD v. HONTRADE ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

CRANE WORLD ASIA PTE LTD v. HONTRADE ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1405/2016

The court held that the Defendant's settlement term conditioning settlement on the witness refraining from giving a witness statement to the Plaintiff was an unambiguous impropriety that abused the without prejudice occasion; consequently the without prejudice privilege did not protect that evidence and the material referring to the offer of 26 November 2015 was admissible at trial. The Judge below erred in refusing admission.
11 Apr 2013

香港特別行政區訴張建忠

Citation

香港特別行政區訴張建忠
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA37/2013

The magistrate's refusal to issue summonses was correct because the evidence was insufficient to infer that the second assault was intended to deter the applicant from being a witness (required for attempt to pervert the course of justice), and the security guard's mere failure to prevent the assault did not constitute assistance, encouragement or procurement absent evidence of knowledge, intent and positive acts; the statutory definition of 'security work' does not itself create criminal liability for omissions.
21 Jan 2011

RE MS CLARE MONTGOMERY, QC

Citation

RE MS CLARE MONTGOMERY, QC<br>
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2516/2010

The application was granted because the court concluded that the interest of justice required admission of overseas leading counsel who was not personally acquainted with the client and could therefore provide an objective view; this was compounded by the practical handicap that the applicant (a widely known local barrister) had limited local options, and substantial local involvement would remain through experienced junior counsel.