Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Disclosure of identity of person under investigation

  • 7 Mar 2024

    香港特別行政區 訴 林卓廷

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 728
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA34/2023

    The court held that there existed a reasonably arguable and non‑trivial dispute about the proper construction of s.30(1)(b), specifically whether the phrase concerning the identity of the subject person extends to disclosures of non‑Part II investigations when the defendant knows the subject is also under Part II investigation; because the issue was reasonably arguable and of great and general importance, the court granted a certificate under s.32(2) for the stated point of law. The court also concluded, on its narrower construction of s.30(1)(b), that the respondent's disclosures concerning…

    • Prevention of bribery ordinance s.30(1)(b)
    • Disclosure of identity of person under investigation
    • Legislative history and purposive construction
    • Certificate to appeal to court of final appeal

  • 8 Feb 2024

    香港特別行政區 訴 林卓廷

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 422
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA34/2023

    s30(1)(b) must be read narrowly: the prohibited disclosure of a subject person's identity or that 'the subject person is so subject' refers to being the subject of an investigation into offences under Part II of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance; disclosure that a person is under investigation for non‑Part II misconduct (eg public officer misconduct) does not fall within s30(1)(b); on the facts appellant's disclosures did not satisfy the statutory element and convictions were therefore unsustainable.

    • Prevention of bribery ordinance s30(1)(b)
    • Disclosure of identity of person under investigation
    • Reasonable excuse/public interest defence
    • Legislative history of 1996 amendments
    • Overlap of investigations

  • 26 Aug 2020

    香港特別行政區 訴 吳沛泓

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 2094
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA512/2018

    The trial judge's factual findings and credibility assessments were supported by the evidence; inconsistencies were minor and did not undermine overall reliability; the appellant's unsworn recorded statements and tactical decision not to testify did not compel a different conclusion. Accordingly the elements of s30(1)(a)/(b) were established for counts 2–4 and the convictions stand.

    • Disclosure of identity of person under investigation
    • Prevention of bribery ordinance s30
    • Credibility and weight of evidence
    • Appellate review of factual findings