Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Autrefois acquit

Legal area

Court

8 Sept 2017

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 317
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC41/2016

The court held that the acquittal on the previous Count 5 (attempt to make TATP) does not bar the prosecution from proceeding with the current possession charge or from adducing evidence that the specified items were capable of making explosives (including TATP); however the prosecution may not advance the case to the jury that the defendant attempted to make TATP on 14 June 2015 because he has been acquitted of that offence.
25 Jun 2009

YEUNG CHUN PONG AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

YEUNG CHUN PONG AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC8/2008

The Court held the Hong Kong prosecution did not arise from the same or substantially the same set of facts as the Macanese trial because the accounts, periods, sums and racing seasons differed and any overlap was insignificant; no inconsistency would result from a conviction in Hong Kong given the Macanese acquittal; therefore the stay was properly refused and the appeals were dismissed with costs.
10 Jun 2009

WONG KEI KWONG v. PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG KEI KWONG v. PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV72/2008

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's proposed reinterpretation of s15 would amount to re-writing an unambiguous statutory provision; the court found no ambiguity in s15 and held the case did not raise a matter of great and general public importance to justify grant of leave to the Court of Final Appeal.
9 Jan 2008

YEUNG CHUN PONG AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

YEUNG CHUN PONG AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV330/2006

The appeal was dismissed because the plea of autrefois acquit was inapplicable: the Hong Kong charges were different in law and fact (different bank account, amounts and time periods) and did not constitute re-litigation of the same incident; consequently no abuse of process arose and no stay was warranted; foreign prosecutorial omissions do not compel a domestic stay absent unfairness affecting a fair trial; collateral judicial review of trial discretion should be exceptional.
30 Mar 2006

YEUNG CHUN PONG AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

YEUNG CHUN PONG AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV368/2005

Rejection of a properly defined plea of autrefois acquit may, in narrow and well defined circumstances, be subject to collateral judicial review, but mere failure of such a plea will not automatically justify interrupting criminal proceedings; where the plea is arguable and the right invoked is fundamental an application for leave to judicially review should not be summarily set aside in favour of waiting for appeal.
2 Mar 2006

YEUNG CHUN PONG AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

YEUNG CHUN PONG AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC101/2005

The Court exercised its discretion to extend time and grant leave to appeal despite the issue being academic between the immediate parties because the question as to availability of the plea of autrefois acquit in committal proceedings warranted final determination for the sake of the general law.
31 Aug 2005

HKSAR v. YEUNG CHUN PONG AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. YEUNG CHUN PONG AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC438/2005

The plea of autrefois acquit fails because the Macao proceedings did not place the Accused in jeopardy for the Hong Kong offence alleged in the first charge: the Macao offence required an overt act and did not include the bank account (275-1-076-874) and time period alleged in the first Hong Kong charge; consequently the evidence necessary to secure a conviction on the Hong Kong charge would not have been sufficient to procure a conviction on the Macao charge. There is no evidence of prosecutorial mala fides or oppressive conduct warranting a stay; accordingly the prosecution of the first cha…
24 Jul 2001

HKSAR v. CHOW SHUN CHIU

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOW SHUN CHIU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL763/2001

The application for judicial review was dismissed because the matters and remedies relied upon lay within the criminal appeal/process framework rather than raising a fundamental illegality requiring supervisory intervention; the Court of Appeal had found the transfer to the District Court null, leaving jurisdiction with the magistrate, and judicial review is not an appropriate collateral substitute for the ordinary criminal remedies in these circumstances.
24 Jun 1999

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAM TAT MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAM TAT MING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC615/1998

Section 84 permits the Attorney General to appeal an acquittal on a matter of law even where the prosecution, following a judge's erroneous exclusion of vital evidence, elects to offer no further evidence and an acquittal is entered; there is no legislative requirement of a direct causal link or that the prosecution must continue a futile trial, and a plea of autrefois acquit does not bar such an appeal in these circumstances.
3 Sept 1992

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG TAI YAU AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG TAI YAU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA414/1992

An acquittal in criminal proceedings does not preclude a subsequent civil forfeiture order under s27(1)(a) of the Import and Export Ordinance; forfeiture proceedings are civil, determined on the balance of probabilities, and s27(1)(a) is sufficiently wide to allow forfeiture notwithstanding an acquittal where the factual findings establish a contravention.