Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pension forfeiture

Legal area

Court

1 Nov 2010

LAM TAT MING v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAM TAT MING v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL121/2009

PBO s.27(2) is constitutionally invalid because the pension‑forfeiture procedure does not provide decision‑makers with the power to summon and subject key adverse witnesses to live cross‑examination; where disputed primary facts are determinative, that structural deficiency means the process fails Art.10 and judicial review cannot cure the defect; accordingly s.27(2) is incompatible with Art.10 and the Secretary's and Chief Executive's decisions denying Lam a pension are quashed.
31 Oct 2006

LAU KWOK FAI BERNARD v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAU KWOK FAI BERNARD v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV93/2005

The Court dismissed the appeal: it refused to admit the late new ground challenging absence of PSC consultation because it was extremely late and required new evidence; the attack on the interdiction condition was treated as academic because it had been overtaken by the subsequent dismissal decision and no good reason existed to decide the point. The underlying decisions of the judge below were upheld and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
16 Mar 1999

MAN KWOK YIN v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Citation

MAN KWOK YIN v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL100/1998

The court concluded that leave to challenge the finding of guilt was not arguable because the adjudicating officer could reasonably infer from the admitted facts that the applicant agreed to place bets for the prisoner; however, leave was granted to challenge the sanction because it is arguable that the Commissioner erred by failing to consider the available alternative of compulsory retirement preserving accrued pension benefits under rule 255, making the dismissal with complete pension forfeiture potentially flawed.
3 May 1985

THE QUEEN v. KAM TIN PO(D2)

Citation

THE QUEEN v. KAM TIN PO(D2)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC122/1985

The abuse of trust by a police officer who handcuffed and then indiscriminately kicked a victim in his home constituted a serious offence warranting immediate custody; having considered mitigation, the Court concluded 7 months was not manifestly excessive and refused leave to appeal against sentence.
17 Feb 1979

PUN YING-CHAU v. THE QUEEN

Citation

PUN YING-CHAU v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC140/1979

The appeal was allowed in part because the magistrate failed to give sufficient weight to the appellant's voluntary return and the public interest in encouraging fugitives to return; these mitigating factors justified reducing the custodial sentence so the appellant could be released immediately.

Hong Kong Case Law

LAM TAT MING v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR AND ANOTHER

LAU KWOK FAI BERNARD v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANOTHER

MAN KWOK YIN v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

THE QUEEN v. KAM TIN PO(D2)

PUN YING-CHAU v. THE QUEEN