Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Press freedom

  • 20 Aug 2015

    SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. CHEUNG KIM HUNG AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. CHEUNG KIM HUNG AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1852/2013

    Leave to cross-examine was refused because the proposed questions would not produce evidence sufficiently relevant to culpability for sentencing in the circumstances: (a) source reliability was irrelevant where no inaccuracy was alleged and it did not aggravate the contempt; (b) defendants' mitigation did not depend on positive assertions that the cross-examination sought to elicit and it would be improper to compel them to produce aggravating evidence; and (c) editors remain responsible for reporters so the proposed inquiries were unnecessary; the court retained power to revisit the issue if…

  • 20 Aug 2015

    SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. LI PANG KAY AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. LI PANG KAY AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1851/2013

    The court refused leave to cross-examine because, in the factual context, the proposed lines of questioning were not sufficiently relevant to the only live issue (sentence). Specifically, the reliability of the WhatsApp source was immaterial where no falsehood or additional offending conduct was alleged; and forcing editors to give further positive evidence that would create aggravating facts was inappropriate where defendants' mitigation did not depend on those matters. The exercise of discretion favoured refusal given the facts, though the court left open revisiting the issue if defendants…

  • 14 Jan 1987

    THE QUEEN v MOHAMED HASHIM SHAMSUDIN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v MOHAMED HASHIM SHAMSUDIN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCC262/1986

    The court held that although a common law power exists to postpone publication or restrict reporting in exceptional cases, the balance of factors favored open justice; the proposed partial censorship was impractical and unworkable and the risk of prejudice to the Carrian trial did not clearly outweigh the public interest in full and accurate reporting; therefore the application for reporting restrictions was refused and no reporting restrictions were imposed.