Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Self-invited suspicion

Legal area

Court

11 Dec 2024

香港特別行政區訴必高工程有限公司及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 662
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA491/2023

The magistrate properly exercised discretion to deny costs because independent and objectively credible photographic evidence supported a finding of self-invited suspicion or conduct that reasonably led the prosecution to bring charges; refusal of costs did not breach the presumption of innocence because withdrawal was due to an unavailable key witness and the court may consider background independent evidence in a costs decision.
29 Sept 2022

香港特別行政區訴張漢標

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2987
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA126/2021

The magistrate lawfully refused the appellant's costs application because the objective dashcam footage clearly showed the appellant had driven left into the complainant's lane and was very close to the complainant's vehicle, constituting self-invited suspicion; the magistrate did not err in referencing the photographic evidence and the appellate court will not intervene.
1 Sept 2022

香港特別行政區訴陳瑞文

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1298
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC146/2021

The Court allowed the prosecution's appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by treating presence on the pavement as decisive and by applying a double standard to mask‑wearing; objectively the respondent's conduct (mask, location in the core area, lingering and route choice) gave rise to self‑invited suspicion, so the costs order in his favor was wrongly made and must be set aside.
4 Jun 2021

香港特別行政區訴蔡少芬

Citation

[2021] HKDC 716
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC679/2020

Although acquitted defendants are ordinarily entitled to costs, the judge exercised the statutory discretion to refuse costs because the defendant gave a demonstrable false account in a recorded interview that created self-invited suspicion directly related to the charge, which justified denying the costs application.
22 Dec 2020

香港特別行政區訴謝國强

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3084
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA204/2019

Refusal to award trial costs was correct because the appellant's decision to leave an emaciated, elderly dog unattended while moving constituted an improper arrangement that reasonably invited suspicion and third‑party intervention; that created a proper basis for the prosecution and rendered the refusal of costs lawful despite the eventual acquittal on the charged offences.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 必高工程有限公司及另一人

香港特別行政區 訴 張漢標

香港特別行政區 訴 陳瑞文

香港特別行政區 訴 蔡少芬

香港特別行政區 訴 謝國强

香港特別行政區訴必高工程有限公司及另一人

香港特別行政區訴張漢標

香港特別行政區訴陳瑞文

香港特別行政區訴蔡少芬

香港特別行政區訴謝國强