15 Dec 2023
The court found that, on the material before it and having regard to available remedial measures, a fair trial remained possible; the matters complained of went to credibility and were not shown to be the product of bad faith or so grave as to affront the court’s sense of justice or undermine public confidence. Accordingly a permanent stay was not justified and must be refused.
12 Jan 2012
The appeal is dismissed because the Commissioner had lawfully conducted the statutory examination and concluded it; the applicant failed to show the alleged interception was carried out by a specified department under the Ordinance so the statutory scheme did not apply; the judicial review challenge was time-barred and, in any event, the case was unarguable and lacked realistic prospects of success.
20 Oct 2011
Leave refused because the applicant failed to show a reasonably arguable case; the Commissioner had complied with the statutory procedure and was statutorily barred under s46(4) from giving reasons or indicating whether interception had occurred.
11 May 2010
The appellants' convictions and sentences were set aside and a permanent stay ordered because ICAC officers listened to a recorded solicitor‑client meeting after becoming aware solicitors were present without adequate reassessment, fresh authorisation or legal advice; that deliberate or cavalier intrusion into privileged communications constituted an abuse of process that affronted the court's conscience and (as to D2) precluded a fair trial.
3 Dec 2007
The covert recordings and immunized witness evidence were admissible because their admission did not render the trial unfair; the trial judge properly assessed credibility and rejected the appellant's defences (bluffing, drunkenness, fabrication allegations); the elements of misconduct in public office and blackmail were satisfied on the evidence; accordingly the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed convictions and the 36-month total sentence.
12 Jul 2006
The Court held that suspension of declarations of unconstitutionality is within the court's inherent jurisdiction and, on the facts, justified suspension (not temporary validity); it set aside the temporary validity order and substituted suspension of the declarations for six months from 9 February 2006, permitting the Government to function during that period but not shielding it from legal liability.
10 May 2006
Court held the Executive Order does not constitute "legal procedures" under Article 30 and restrictions on the freedom and privacy of communication must be prescribed by law meeting legal certainty and proportionality; s.33 (and related Executive Order) were declared inconsistent with the Basic Law/Bill of Rights but the court has jurisdiction in truly exceptional circumstances to suspend the effect of such declarations temporarily to avoid a legal vacuum and preserve the rule of law; the Chief Executive was not under a legally enforceable duty to bring the IOC Ordinance into force at any par…
10 May 2006
The Court held the Executive Order are administrative directions and do not constitute "legal procedures" under Article 30, so cannot validly impinge fundamental communication privacy rights; the Chief Executive was not under a judicially enforceable duty to bring the IOC Ordinance into force at any particular time; nevertheless, in exceptional circumstances the court has inherent jurisdiction to suspend the effect of a declaration of invalidity and temporarily validate otherwise invalid measures for a limited period to avoid a legal vacuum and preserve the rule of law; accordingly the appeal…
9 Feb 2006
S.33 of the Telecommunications Ordinance insofar as it authorises interception and disclosure of telecommunication contents is inconsistent with arts.30 and 39 of the Basic Law and art.14 of the Bill of Rights for lack of legislative safeguards and legal certainty; the Executive Order is an administrative instrument and does not constitute the "legal procedures" required by art.30; the Chief Executive had not acted unlawfully in deferring commencement of the IOC under s.1(2); declarations of invalidity are suspended for six months to allow corrective legislation.
22 Dec 2005
The trial judge's first ruling was legally wrong because it prevented the prosecution from resiling from concessions and from adducing relevant evidence from ICAC officers; that refusal prevented the necessary inquiry into ICAC state of mind and available evidence (including possible conspiracy) and thus denied the court the material needed to lawfully exercise its discretion on stays. The first ruling is quashed and the matter is remitted to the District Court for fresh determination in accordance with law.