Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disclosure of unused material

Legal area

Court

7 Jun 2017

HKSAR v. CLIFFORD JAMES

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1498
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC259/2015

After an in camera examination of the formally produced files (five black folders, five blue folders and a case file) the Court found that the material was either already known to the defence or not relevant to the defendant's case, except for some material concerning other persons and general intelligence about a West African syndicate; the files primarily consisted of records and dissemination of intelligence and communications and did not disclose further unused material warranting additional disclosure or a permanent stay at that time.
21 Jan 2016

HKSAR v. UN MARK WILLIAM

Citation

HKSAR v. UN MARK WILLIAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC10/2015

After in camera examination of the five files, the court concluded that the material is in large part either irrelevant to the trial or already known to the defence and therefore not unused material disclosable to the defence; the prosecution had taken reasonable steps to identify relevant material, but specific documents flagged by the judge (File1 A,B; File4 A,B,C; File5 A-E) require further address, and overseas material must be obtained via Mutual Legal Assistance if relevant.
15 Jan 2016

HKSAR v. LAI KWOK HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. LAI KWOK HUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC249/2013

The Court held that the individual items of circumstantial evidence, when assessed together, were of sufficient quality to permit a properly directed jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was the killer; accordingly the trial judge correctly refused the no case to answer submission, his reasons were adequate, no lies direction was required, nondisclosure was not materially prejudicial, and leave to appeal against conviction and against the mandatory life sentence was refused.
24 Sept 2015

HKSAR v. TONER BRENDAN JOHN

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 763
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC488/2014

Court granted bail to the defendants subject to specified conditions because the prosecution did not object and the court was satisfied on the available material that the defendants were not flight risks and there were plausible explanations and issues (including need for disclosure and medical matters) that warranted release on conditions; the prosecution is ordered to take all reasonable steps to identify and obtain disclosure from foreign agencies and a further mention was fixed to monitor compliance.
24 Sept 2015

HKSAR v. MOORMAN WILLIAM LEON

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 763
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC310/2015

Given the prosecution's lack of objection to bail, the absence of demonstrated flight risk for these largely vulnerable and hitherto law‑abiding defendants, and the outstanding disclosure issues requiring the prosecution to take reasonable steps to identify and obtain potentially relevant foreign material, bail was appropriate subject to specified conditions; trials were vacated/adjourned pending resolution and a further mention hearing was fixed to monitor disclosure progress.
3 Aug 2012

HKSAR v. ONG SIU SIN KEVIN

Citation

HKSAR v. ONG SIU SIN KEVIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC129/2011

The Court refused the Rule 12(3) appeal aid application and refused leave to appeal against conviction because the case was straightforward (credibility at its core), the applicant was literate and capable of self-representation, the trial judge was entitled to accept the complainants' evidence and reject the applicant, and the conditions for admitting fresh evidence were not met; the application to appeal sentence was abandoned and dismissed.
26 Nov 2010

LI KWOK KEUNG ASSER v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

Citation

LI KWOK KEUNG ASSER v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV85/2010

Appeal allowed in part: SFAT erred in materially reducing the SFC's penalty because its central finding of a 'misunderstanding' was speculative and unsupported by the evidence and the SFAT should not import criminal-law procedures into the statutory SFO disciplinary code; the appropriate sanction substituted is a 3-year prohibition from 19 March 2010; costs ordered at 40% in favor of SFC.
6 Sept 2005

MO YUK PING v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

MO YUK PING v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV270/2005

The Court upheld the factual findings of the trial judge that no prejudice or bad faith was shown from the destruction of intercepted tapes; applied the balance of probabilities standard for prejudice and reaffirmed that stays for abuse of process or interruption of trial by judicial review are exceptional; therefore refusal of leave and dismissal of the appeal was correct and the criminal trial should continue.
24 Aug 2005

MO YUK PING v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

MO YUK PING v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL111/2005

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because although there was a prima facie arguable case, the issues raised should be determined, if necessary, on appeal after the trial produces a full evidential context; interruption of the criminal trial is an exceptional remedy and the trial judge's discretionary refusal to stay did not impugn the court's jurisdiction and thus did not justify interlocutory judicial review.
23 Aug 2005

HKSAR v. MO YUK PING AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. MO YUK PING AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC1360/2004

Accused failed to discharge the onus on the balance of probabilities to show a fair trial is impossible from the destruction of interception material; the interception and destruction policy applied by the Government and implemented by the ICAC was rational and struck a fair balance between privacy and law enforcement; there was no finding of bad faith or serious fault by the ICAC and therefore no abuse of process warranting a permanent stay; applications dismissed and trial to proceed.