1 Mar 2024
The court exercised its discretion to award the prosecution the quantified costs of preparing written submissions ($3,280.00) because those costs were incurred and not disputed, but limited the award by the defendant's means and excluded any costs for an unnecessary hearing; accordingly the defendant was ordered to pay $3,280.00 within six months.
23 Aug 2021
The court applied the established rule that an acquitted defendant should normally be awarded costs and found that the prosecution had not adduced sufficient circumstantial evidence or admissions to displace that rule; therefore D2 was entitled to costs and the amount should be assessed if parties cannot agree.
29 Apr 2020
The appeal court held that the magistrate was entitled to refuse costs to D2 and D3 because their voluntary records of interview contained answers that legitimately raised suspicion; however the magistrate erred as to D1 by relying on an excluded record of interview that had been excluded on voluntariness grounds (not merely procedural or technical grounds), and therefore that excluded statement could not be used to refuse costs — D1 is entitled to costs for Charges 1 and 3, taxed if not agreed.
11 Jul 2016
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge rationally found both officers were lawfully executing duties in crowd-control and arrest, the appellant ignored clear warnings and actively struggled thereby materially increasing the difficulty of the arrest under the Tam Lap Fai test, the police evidence was corroborated by video and crediting those witnesses was within the judge's discretion, and refusal of costs was a proper exercise of judicial discretion given the appellant's conduct and lack of additional hearing burden.
12 Mar 2009
The magistrate erred in refusing costs. The prosecution failed to prove the essential element of employment beyond reasonable doubt; the appellant did not bring suspicion upon himself (he was not asked to explain and his right to silence cannot be used against him); the acquittal was not merely technical; therefore the appellant is entitled to costs.
8 Nov 1976
Appeal allowed in part: fines were excessive given this was the company's first conviction and the tapes were seized in bulk constituting one act of possession; therefore individual fines were reduced and aggregate fine reduced from $161,000 to $91,000; the court must not be influenced by the director's husband's offences; prosecution costs ordered and 50% of fines directed to the informer under statute.