Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prison rules

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2021

HKSAR v. FU MAN KIT (符文傑）

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 34
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC4/2021

BOR 11(6) applies only where there has been a final conviction or acquittal by a court exercising criminal jurisdiction in accordance with Hong Kong law and penal procedure; disciplinary proceedings under the Prison Rules do not qualify as such and therefore do not trigger BOR 11(6); likewise the common law discretionary stay for double jeopardy requires a prior determination by a court of competent jurisdiction; the Engel criteria apply to engagement of procedural fair trial guarantees but not to the substantive protection under BOR 11(6).
30 Oct 2013

SIU CHI WAN, VINCENT v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR AND ANOTHER

Citation

SIU CHI WAN, VINCENT v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1131/2011

On proper construction of the Pension Benefits Ordinance and the Prison Rules, dismissal for disciplinary misconduct did not give rise to a statutory entitlement to pension for the plaintiff and there is no reasonably arguable claim that procedural protections in ss29A/29B were breached; the strike out was correctly made and the action must be dismissed; ancillary claims for unpaid leave and withheld salary fall within Labour Tribunal jurisdiction and must be struck out.
28 Jun 2005

HKSAR v. KWAN WAI HON

Citation

HKSAR v. KWAN WAI HON
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC91/2005

Because the judge's intended ordering was understood to mean a partial concurrency after six months but the clerk's wording produced a computational change relied upon by the CSD and because backdating beyond actual custody is impermissible, the court allowed the appeal in part and ordered the sentence to be treated so that the appellant will qualify for an Earliest Date of Discharge on 29 March 2007, subject to Rule 69 of the Prison Rules, Cap.234A.
6 Dec 2000

PANG TAK KWAI v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND ANOTHER

Citation

PANG TAK KWAI v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1610/2000

The Court held that rule 255B was beyond the rule‑making power conferred by section 25 of the Prisons Ordinance and therefore null and void; consequently the Chief Executive's dismissal of the applicant under that rule was null and void and of no effect. Alternatively, even if rule 255B were valid, the Chief Executive's decision to dismiss was Wednesbury irrational and would be quashed and remitted for redetermination.
17 May 2000

LAM SIU TAI v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAM SIU TAI v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV25/2000

The Court held that 'any other punishment which could have been awarded in the first instance' in r.255F(c) is limited to the punishments which could have been awarded by the person who actually decided the case in the first instance; because the Superintendent actually decided the punishment here, the Commissioner and the Chief Executive's delegate exceeded their jurisdiction in increasing the fine beyond the Superintendent's maximum (one day's pay), so the higher punishments were correctly quashed.
2 Nov 1995

CHIM SHING CHUNG v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Citation

CHIM SHING CHUNG v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2271/1995

The Commissioner’s removal of the racing supplement was unlawful because Rule 56 did not authorize partial censorship of newspapers, the unpublished Standing Orders lacked legislative force and could not provide a legal basis, and the action was irrational, disproportionate and breached Article 16 of the Bill of Rights; disclosure refusal impeded access to the court though no mandamus was ordered due to subsequent disclosure and apology.
23 Jan 1990

RE SAKCHAI SUWANNAPENG

Citation

RE SAKCHAI SUWANNAPENG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP157/1990

Segregation of a remand prisoner in solitary confinement pursuant to Rule 36(2) is unlawful unless the prisoner requests it; the Superintendent's order to segregate the applicant was not justified by evidence and Departmental Standing Order No.3796 insofar as it authorises segregation of 'subversive' prisoners is ultra vires; the applicant must be returned to normal association or a declaration of unlawful detention will issue; costs awarded to applicant.
21 Dec 1989

THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Citation

THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV121/1989

Because unchallenged evidence proved the appellant was carrying the money within the superintendent's office (part of the prison) and there was no rule conferring a right to legal representation, the guilty finding on the second charge was lawful and certiorari to quash it was rightly refused.