Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs in criminal cases

Legal area

Court

6 Aug 2024

CHO KWAI CHEE v. HKSAR

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1999
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL285/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted but on substantive review the application was dismissed: the trial judge had correctly identified and applied the legal principles, and it was not irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable to take D1's pre-investigation and meeting conduct into account as a positive reason to refuse costs; accordingly no relief was warranted and the prosecution's costs were ordered against D1.
8 Aug 2023

HKSAR v. PROGIN MARC GERARD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2013
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA188/2022

The appellate court found the magistrate had taken into account irrelevant considerations and misanalysed the evidence when awarding costs; objectively the respondent's conduct (going in front of the complainant, closing the door and photographing amid a hostile crowd) brought suspicion on him and justified denying costs; the appeal was therefore allowed and the costs orders set aside.
24 May 2023

HKSAR v. HAO MAY (formerly known as WANG MAY YAN) (alias MAY WANG)

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 11
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC4/2023

Section 4 CCCO does not empower the trial court to award defence costs when a jury trial collapses without a verdict and a retrial is to be held; s4 is engaged only where the defendant 'is not tried' in the sense that the criminal process in respect of the offence has come to an end in the defendant's favour, and an aborted trial without finality is a neutral event that does not justify a s4 costs order.
24 May 2023

HKSAR v. CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN) (陳克恩)

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 11
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC3/2023

Section 4 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance does not empower the trial court to award defence costs where a jury trial is aborted without an outcome favourable to the defendant and a retrial before another jury will follow; section 4 requires finality or termination of proceedings in the defendant's favour to be engaged; appeals dismissed.
4 Aug 2022

HKSAR v. CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1059
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC185/2021

Section 4 CCCO does not confer jurisdiction to award defence costs in the circumstances of an aborted retrial caused by jury discharge where there is no finality; the section requires that the proceedings for the offence have come to an end such that the defendant "is not tried" for that offence. The trial judge erred in holding he had jurisdiction under s4 and the Costs Order was set aside.
6 Aug 2021

HKSAR v. CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2308
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC309/2019

Section 4 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance confers jurisdiction to award costs where a defendant 'is not tried' for an offence, which includes situations where a jury is discharged during an ongoing trial and no verdict is reached; s17 did not apply because the impugned questioning was not unnecessary or improper; exercising the discretion under s4 on compensatory grounds, the court awarded the accused their costs of the retrial (including the costs application), to be taxed if not agreed, with a certificate for two counsel, subject to submissions within 14 days.
6 Jan 2021

HKSAR v. CHRILLINE CHRISTINE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 99
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC198/2019

Because the jury's unanimous verdict necessarily accepted or may have accepted D1's explanations and there was no evidence she brought suspicion upon herself, the judge exercised the wide discretion under s5 to award costs to D1.
25 Mar 2020

HKSAR v. CHAN HING KAI

Citation

[2020] HKCA 123
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC65/2017

Although the applicant's conduct had brought suspicion on him, the Court exercised its discretion to award the applicant his costs of the trial because the conviction was quashed for a material misdirection which deprived him of a fair trial and a retrial was ordered, making it just and reasonable to compensate him for trial expenses.
31 Dec 2019

HKSAR v. CHAN PAK LIN PERRY

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 3165
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA258/2014

The taxing master correctly applied the statutory and rule principles that only work actually and reasonably done is recoverable; Khan is inapplicable because the appellant had full professional representation so his personal work did not substitute for unpaid counsel and much claimed work was duplicative, unnecessary or could have been performed by an intelligent lay client; therefore items 1-40 were taxed off, specified items (eg 42, 107) disallowed as duplicated or not reasonably incurred, time wasted at taxation deducted (two hours from item 298) and interest to cease from 10 July 2018; c…
2 Dec 2019

HKSAR v. YEUNG HO NAM

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1285
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC361/2018

The Court awarded costs for all four claimed items because the expenses were properly incurred in the sentence appeal: the bail application, though refused, was not frivolous, was appropriate in the circumstances, prompted an expedited hearing that led to correction of sentence and immediate release, and there was no conduct meriting denial of costs; accordingly respondent must pay appellant's costs with a certificate for two counsel.