Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reporting restrictions

Legal area

Court

2 Aug 2022

CHOW HANG TUNG v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2225
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL401/2022

The court held that s87A(2) of the Magistrates Ordinance, read in context and against its legislative history and relevant authorities, imposes a mandatory duty on a magistrate to order that the reporting restrictions in s87A(1) shall not apply upon an application by the accused; the Principal Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to exercise a discretion and his decision refusing to lift the restrictions was ultra vires and was quashed; mandamus was ordered directing the magistrate to make the lifting order when the applicant next appears.
9 Sept 2021

HKSAR v. HO KWAI LAM

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2707
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCP447/2021

Insufficient reason existed to lift reporting restrictions; the need to protect the integrity of present and future proceedings and prevent prejudice to representation outweighed the asserted public interest, and the claim that the hearing was 'closed door' was inaccurate, therefore the application to lift restrictions was refused.
23 Feb 2021

HKSAR v. LAI CHEE YING

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 448
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCP738/2020

Following a forward‑looking predictive and evaluative risk assessment, having considered all relevant materials including the Third and Fourth Affirmations, the offered bail conditions and the applicant's background, associations and means, the court was not satisfied there were sufficient grounds under NSL 42(2) to believe the applicant would not continue to commit acts endangering national security; therefore bail was refused.
9 Feb 2017

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 307
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC41/2016

The court concluded that where published material creates a substantial risk of prejudice to the fairness of a criminal trial the media must be warned and restrained; accordingly the court issued a warning prohibiting publication of anything likely to create a substantial risk of prejudice to HCCC 41/2016, directed that the media not report the Direction during the proceedings, warned of the risk of contempt proceedings, and granted leave to serve the Direction on the Facebook operator to mitigate prejudicial pre-trial publicity.
8 Mar 2011

CHIU MAN FU AND OTHERS v. CHIU CHUNG KWAN YING

Citation

CHIU MAN FU AND OTHERS v. CHIU CHUNG KWAN YING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP9/2005

The court held that, on balancing the minors' right to privacy against the freedom of the press, the protection of the minors from media intrusion overwhelmingly outweighed press interests and an injunction in the terms of the draft order should be granted to restrain identification of the minors.
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.
17 Oct 1984

RE ASIAWEEK LTD

Citation

RE ASIAWEEK LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2784/1984

Section 80 does not prima facie require preliminary inquiries to be in camera; the magistrate erred in excluding the press while admitting the public, that error was apparent on the face of the record and the order was one no magistrate properly directing himself could have made, therefore certiorari should issue to quash the order and remit the matter for hearing in open court.
17 Oct 1984

R. v. GEORGE TAN AND OTHERS

Citation

R. v. GEORGE TAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2795/1984

Section 80 does not prima facie require preliminary inquiries to be in camera; the magistrate erred in law by excluding the press while admitting the public without properly balancing the paramount principle of open justice against the asserted risk to jury impartiality; the order disclosed an error on the face of the record and was one no properly directed magistrate could have made, therefore certiorari to quash the order was justified and the matter must be remitted for reconsideration to proceed in open court.