17 May 2022
Costs were refused because the judge found that the defendant's conduct—specifically receiving and wearing a gas mask and continuing to wear it while fleeing as police advanced—constituted self-attribution of suspicion connected to the charged offence and therefore amounted to a cogent reason to deny costs despite the acquittal.
6 May 2019
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against the costs order because the original judge failed to comply with statutory requirements and relevant authorities by not considering the appellant's means, not ensuring the costs would be compensatory and reasonable, and not giving the appellant an opportunity to respond; absent those considerations the costs order lacked sufficient basis and was quashed, with the Court of Appeal fixing costs of this appeal at HK$2,500 payable by the respondent.
20 Nov 1985
Although the applicant was acquitted of the charge as laid, his own admissions and the depositions disclosed a prima facie case that he participated in a hoax amounting to making an unwarranted demand with intent to cause loss; applying the Practice Direction and section 73A the court exercised its discretion to refuse an order for costs from public funds and left the applicant to pay his own costs.