19 Mar 2025
Where a defendant is acquitted, a magistrate may refuse costs only upon a proper factual finding of misconduct justifying that refusal; in the absence of such evidence and where the magistrate's reasons contradict his findings, the refusal is unlawful and costs must be awarded.
14 Jan 2009
Although the appeals were allowed because the trial judge misapplied the Li Defan principle, the court exercised its discretion on costs under the governing principles in Tong Cun Lin and Ting James Henry and concluded both appellants had by their conduct (accepting large secretive cash payments; D2 lying to investigators; D3 breaching internal 'walls' and associated conduct) brought grave suspicion upon themselves, thereby disentitling them to the costs of their trials; however they were entitled to costs of the appeals and of their bail pending appeal, to be taxed if not agreed.
19 Sept 2006
The magistrate erred in refusing costs because his own findings established the appellant acted honestly and did not bring suspicion upon himself; therefore the general rule to award costs to an acquitted defendant applied and the appeal is allowed with an order that costs be taxed if not agreed.
16 Jun 2006
The magistrate did not irrationally exercise his discretion in refusing costs; although the appellant was acquitted, the magistrate found the appellant had ejaculated in the complainant's presence which legitimately brought suspicion upon him, and that finding provided a positive reason to refuse costs; appellate court will not disturb such an exercise of discretion absent irrelevant factors or an unreasonable conclusion.
10 Jul 2003
Where the magistrate dismissed the charges because prosecution witnesses were unreliable and there was no reliable evidence to support findings that the appellant acted improperly, there were no positive reasons to refuse costs; accordingly the appeal allowing costs was required.
20 Sept 2002
The appeal is dismissed because the Appellant failed to comply with the statutory 24‑hour reporting obligation and withheld material evidence (the photograph and the presence of the tung ga), thereby creating positive reasons to refuse an order for public payment of costs despite the acquittal; submission of a Form 2 did not satisfy the statutory reporting duty.
24 Sept 2001
Although the 1st appellant's conviction was quashed on appeal, the appellate court found ample circumstantial evidence that the licensee had knowledge of and permitted a system offering immoral services, thereby bringing suspicion upon him; consequently the general rule awarding costs to an acquitted defendant did not apply and the 1st appellant was deprived of costs. The application for a s32 certificate was refused because the contested issue as to whether private premises open to the public constitute a "public place" is fact‑specific and does not raise a point of law of great and general…