Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Police discipline

Legal area

Court

24 Dec 2018

劉承聰 v. 香港警務署 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2825
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL270/2017

Leave refused because none of the proposed grounds were reasonably arguable: sections 37(4) and (5) PFO cover traffic offences; the compulsory retirement was a proportionate response assessed on relevant factors and not Wednesbury unreasonable; past practice did not create a legitimate expectation; and adequate reasons were provided in the Staffing and Deliberation Notes.
31 Oct 2014

LEUNG FUK WAH OIL v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

LEUNG FUK WAH OIL v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV200/2012

The applications for leave were dismissed because the formulated questions did not raise issues of great, general or public importance nor show exceptional circumstances under s22(1)(b); the appeals involved fact‑sensitive applications of established abuse of process and finality principles and did not demonstrate reversible error in law; constitutional or legitimate expectation points were not reasonably arguable in this context.
21 Feb 2013

KONG KWOK KEUNG v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

KONG KWOK KEUNG v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL128/2012

The Adjudicating Officer did not err in law: PGO 6-01(8) (1999) requires three causally linked elements and operational efficiency can legitimately be assessed from a management perspective including suitability for posting; evidence that the officer was placed on restricted duties, prohibited from carrying firearms, and had integrity concerns provided a sufficient evidential basis to find impairment of operational efficiency; therefore the leave application had no realistic prospect and was refused.
24 Jul 2009

CHIU HOI PO v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

CHIU HOI PO v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV9/2009

Given the established principle that defaulters are to be permitted legal representation where fairness requires and the appellant was denied such representation, the Court allowed the uncontested appeal under the Mok Kin Kau procedure, quashed the findings of guilt and awards of punishment, and granted the proposed costs orders.
25 Jan 2005

LUK SIU FAI v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE on behalf of COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

LUK SIU FAI v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE on behalf of COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL37/2004

The AO's findings were rational and based on cogent, contemporaneous evidence (three officers' records and immigration records); identified discrepancies were minor and did not destroy reliability; absence of a formal caution did not vitiate admissibility in disciplinary proceedings; the AO's language indicated a high standard of proof equivalent to beyond reasonable doubt; the conduct was disciplinable as a continuing event into Hong Kong; dismissal was a lawful and proportionate disciplinary response — accordingly the judicial review is dismissed.
30 May 2003

TSANG HING SHING v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

TSANG HING SHING v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL191/2002

The FDO acted beyond his statutory powers by confirming the four individual awards and then imposing, in addition, a global terminatory award; regulation 14 does not permit imposing an additional award after confirmation nor permit a single global award across separate charges; accordingly the additional terminatory award is ultra vires and must be quashed by certiorari while the four individual awards as confirmed remain valid.
3 Jul 2002

CHU PING TAK TIM v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

CHU PING TAK TIM v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL3672/2001

Regulation 3(2)(m) may be made out without separate proof of impaired efficiency; on the facts the Applicant's repeated lending to finance high‑risk margin speculation while heavily indebted was sufficiently imprudent to justify a finding of conduct likely to bring the Force into disrepute; the dismissal sentence was not so disproportionate as to be perverse; however the failure to disclose material memoranda to the Deputy Commissioner breached the duty of fairness and produced prejudice sufficient to quash the Deputy Commissioners dismissal of the appeal and the Commissioners consequent or…
13 Jun 2002

TAM KWING YIM v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

TAM KWING YIM v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL97/2002

The court held that the undisputed evidence of unmanageable indebtedness and a bankruptcy order established serious pecuniary embarrassment and imprudence under PGO 6-01(8)/Reg 3(2)(e); impairment of operational efficiency is satisfied by the necessity to limit duties and need not be separately proved; therefore the Tribunal's conviction and the compulsory retirement with deferred benefits were justified and not Wednesbury unreasonable, so leave for judicial review was refused.
13 Jun 2002

LAW CHUN LOY v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

LAW CHUN LOY v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL3838/2001

The tribunal unlawfully shifted the legal burden to the Applicant by requiring him to 'prove the contrary' regarding who made the calls; that error of law vitiated the tribunal's decision and required quashing of the conviction and consequential decisions. The burden of proof remained with the prosecution and shifting to the accused was impermissible.
1 Apr 1999

NG KAM CHUEN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

NG KAM CHUEN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL92/1997

PGO 01(8) must be construed as imposing two elements: serious pecuniary embarrassment arising from financial imprudence and resultant impairment of efficiency; proof of the first shifts the evidential burden to the officer to rebut impairment but does not create an irrebuttable presumption; the Disciplinary Tribunal erred by treating impairment as conclusively presumed and its primary decision was quashed.