Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prosecutorial discretion

Legal area

Court

23 Mar 2026

HOANG VAN NANG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1654
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL39/2026

The application for extension of time was refused because, although the delay (10 days) was not substantial, the applicant's reasons for delay were not compelling and the proposed appeal had no apparent merit: the original leave application lacked identifiable public law grounds and attacked a prosecutorial decision not ordinarily reviewable; the applicant failed to identify any grounds of appeal and there was therefore no basis to exercise the discretion to extend time.
9 Mar 2026

NGUYEN VAN DUONG v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1379
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2464/2025

The summons for an extension of time to appeal was dismissed because the applicant's delay (approximately three months) was substantial, the reasons for delay were unconvincing in light of the court record showing service and previous English filings, and the proposed appeal had no identified merits or public law grounds (including that the subject matter was a prosecutorial decision not open to ordinary judicial review), so the overall justice did not favour extending time.
26 Feb 2026

LAU DIK SANG v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCA 306
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV36/2026

Appeal dismissed: mandatory non‑compliance with Order 53 in the Form 86 justified refusal of leave; prosecutorial decisions by DoJ are not subject to judicial review on conventional administrative law grounds absent an allegation of unconstitutionality; Commissioner validly relied on s17(2) TDO to refuse disclosure; courts may not compel amendment of primary legislation.
20 Feb 2026

HOANG VAN NANG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1022
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL39/2026

The application for leave is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law or constitutional ground on Form 86 as required by Order 53 r3, and prosecutorial decisions to continue criminal proceedings are not susceptible to judicial review on conventional administrative law grounds absent an allegation of unconstitutionality.
9 Feb 2026

NGUYEN VAN TRUNG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 800
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL262/2026

The application for leave was dismissed because it was not brought promptly and the Form 86 failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds; additionally, prosecutorial decisions are only amenable to judicial review on grounds of unconstitutionality, which were not pleaded.
23 Jan 2026

蘇全德對香港警務處處長周一鳴 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 198
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2814/2025

Permission refused because, as a matter of law, even if the applicant's factual allegations were true they did not constitute an arguable basis to quash the prosecution or to order an investigation, and the court will not ordinarily intervene in prosecutorial decisions protected under the Basic Law.
14 Jan 2026

LUU NGOC QUYET v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 242
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2889/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was time-barred and the Form 86 failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds; further, prosecutorial decisions of the kind challenged are not justiciable except on a ground of unconstitutionality, which was not pleaded.
31 Dec 2025

LAU DIK SANG v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6382
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2770/2025

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds on Form 86 as required by Order 53 r3; prosecutorial decisions by the DoJ are not subject to conventional judicial review absent a claim of unconstitutionality; the alleged misinterpretation of section 17(2) TDO was untenable and requests to amend the TDO are matters for the Administration and Legislative Council, not the court.
22 Dec 2025

梁淑微對香港海關 (商品說明調查科)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6274
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1274/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to establish any arguable, reasonable grounds: the customs decision to close the investigation followed consideration of evidence and referral to the Department of Justice, prosecutorial discretion and statutory confidentiality governed disclosure, there was no demonstrable undue delay or mala fides, and no basis to order disclosure of investigatory materials.
18 Nov 2025

NGUYEN VAN DUONG v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5594
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2464/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review must be refused where the applicant fails to identify any reasonably arguable public law ground and where the subject matter is a prosecutorial decision that is only reviewable on narrow constitutional grounds under Article 63 Basic Law which were not alleged.