Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Self‑induced suspicion

Legal area

Court

27 Oct 2025

香港特別行政區訴何卓為及另七人

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5036
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC186/2022

The court refused the costs applications because both D7 and D8 engaged in conduct that plainly invited suspicion — repeated presence in rooms storing explosives, relevant Telegram communications, association with explosive precursors/chemicals and, in D7's case, assisting in custody of sulfur — and their silence during investigation prevented disclosure of mitigating explanations; such conduct justified exercise of judicial discretion to dismiss their costs applications.
3 Apr 2025

香港特別行政區訴劉旨豫

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1228
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA87/2024

Given the CCTV evidence and the totality of evidence including the clinical psychologist's opinion, the appellant's conduct did not amount to self-induced suspicion; the expert evidence had probative value; therefore trial costs and the expert's fees were awarded. Because only one of five appeal grounds succeeded, appeal costs were reduced to 50% and only one senior counsel certificate was justified; unresolved quantum to be assessed by the hearing officer.
20 Sept 2024

香港特別行政區訴區焯㓻

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3418
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA494/2023

The appellate judge upheld the magistrate's refusal to award costs because, on a rehearing of all evidence, the appellant's behaviour during investigation—carrying a significant knife and a sharp pointed pen in public, walking closely behind pedestrians when foot traffic was light, and asserting 'self‑defence' while denying any mental illness at interview and seeking psychiatric assessment only later—constituted self‑induced suspicion sufficient to justify depriving an acquitted defendant of costs.
29 Dec 2022

香港特別行政區訴曾鏡波及另二人

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3845
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA123/2021

The evidence (prepared referral agreement, signed approval form, cheque collection and payment into the third appellant’s account) permitted the sole reasonable inference that the appellants conspired to present false documents and obtain the commission; their conduct amounted to self‑induced suspicion and therefore the trial judge properly exercised discretion to refuse costs; the appeal is dismissed.
15 Oct 2018

香港特別行政區訴葉罕芬

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2315
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA469/2017

Appeal allowed and appeal costs awarded because evidence was insufficient to prove intoxication beyond reasonable doubt; trial costs denied because appellant's disorderly conduct and self‑induced suspicion amounted to positive reasons to withhold trial costs.
20 Feb 2014

香港特別行政區訴歐永新

Citation

香港特別行政區訴歐永新
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA691/2013

The magistrate's refusal to award costs conflicted with the acquittal because his adverse inference of self-induced suspicion rested on flawed interpretation and simplistic braking-time calculations that ignored relative vehicle speeds and lacked evidential support; the appellant did not invite suspicion and is therefore entitled to trial and appeal costs, tax to the court if parties cannot agree.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 何卓為及另七人

香港特別行政區 訴 劉旨豫

香港特別行政區 訴 區焯㓻

香港特別行政區 訴 曾鏡波及另二人

香港特別行政區 訴 葉罕芬

香港特別行政區 訴 歐永新

香港特別行政區訴何卓為及另七人

香港特別行政區訴劉旨豫

香港特別行政區訴區焯㓻

香港特別行政區訴曾鏡波及另二人

香港特別行政區訴葉罕芬

香港特別行政區訴歐永新