Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Procedural fairness in disciplinary hearings

Legal area

Court

9 Aug 2019

何毓桓對懲教署署長

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1987
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL148/2018

The leave application was dismissed because the Director's decisions fell within lawful discretionary powers exercised to protect order and safety, no persuasive evidence of procedural unfairness, fabrication of records or double punishment existed, and the applicant's complaints lacked arguable grounds; additionally the application was filed out of the statutory three‑month period though that point was academic given the absence of merits.
16 Aug 2005

BRIAN ALFRED HALL v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE FOR : COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & EXCISE DEPARTMENT

Citation

BRIAN ALFRED HALL v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE FOR : COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & EXCISE DEPARTMENT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL84/2004

Medical challenge dismissed: prison medical staff acted professionally, relied on specialist advice and no unlawful failure to provide appropriate/adequate treatment established. Seizure of tapes lawful: discretion to control possession of tapes was reasonably exercised and applicant failed to justify religious character of items; loss resulted from applicant's conduct. Disciplinary proceedings vitiated: adjudicating officer refused to consider CCTV evidence and material unfairness occurred; penalties quashed; no remittal ordered. Decision to return applicant to normal association unlawful an…
27 Jan 1999

KEITH RATCLIFFE v. THE SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE AND ANOTEHR

Citation

KEITH RATCLIFFE v. THE SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE AND ANOTEHR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL43/1998

Both the Investigating Committee's factual findings and its opinion were amenable to judicial review; the Committee failed to make essential objective findings (whether a reasonable person would have anticipated offence, whether touching was deliberate and sexual, and the motive for dwelling on explicit matters), and on the facts it did find it was not open to conclude sexual harassment or misconduct; accordingly the Secretary's finding of misconduct and the order of compulsory retirement were unlawful and were quashed by certiorari.

Hong Kong Case Law

何毓桓 對 懲教署署長

BRIAN ALFRED HALL v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE FOR : COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & EXCISE DEPARTMENT

KEITH RATCLIFFE v. THE SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE AND ANOTEHR

何毓桓對懲教署署長