16 Feb 2026
Refused certification: first proposed question did not arise because a reason (albeit short) was given; second question not reasonably arguable because s.9J(2) CPO confers a discretionary power to award costs to be exercised in light of all circumstances and there is no general rule entitling a successful bail applicant to reasonable costs.
29 Dec 2020
Bail was granted because, considering the not-yet-conclusive state of the evidence, arguable defences, the Applicant's compliance history, and because the bespoke and stringent conditions proposed and accepted (HK$10 million cash bail, three cash sureties, surrender of travel documents, reporting, confinement to residence with narrow exceptions, and an express undertaking prohibiting conduct that could be construed as requesting foreign sanctions including specific prohibitions on meetings with foreign officials, media appearances, publication, and social media use) adequately ameliorate the…
9 Dec 2020
The court refused the Secretary for Justice's application to revoke bail because, although there were initially substantial grounds to believe the respondent might fail to surrender, subsequent and verifiable changes in circumstances (employment, attendance at proceedings and provision of particulars) justified continuing bail subject to stricter conditions; accordingly the magistrate's grant of bail was not set aside but the bail conditions were varied to address the identified risks.
23 Oct 2020
The court held that it has jurisdiction to award costs in habeas corpus proceedings of this kind and exercised its discretion to order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs for the habeas corpus application (Order Nisi made absolute), but declined to order indemnity costs because the application raised novel and significant public law issues under the National Security Law and the arguments were not so devoid of merit as to justify indemnity costs; the two summonses were dismissed and there was no order as to the costs of those summonses or the hearing of 19 October 2020, and the applic…
5 Mar 2020
s9G(11) should be interpreted purposively to refer to courts/levels rather than individual judicial officers so as to prevent forum shopping and repeated, frivolous applications; a judge may refuse to hear arguments already decided under s9G(11)(b). On the facts, the asserted contractual and speech reasons did not establish necessity or proportionality to vary the travel restriction, and the public interest in due administration of justice and residual flight/attendance risk justified refusal of the variation.