28 Jul 2011
HO MAN KONG v. SUPERINTENDENT OF LAI CHI KOK RECEPTION AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- HO MAN KONG v. SUPERINTENDENT OF LAI CHI KOK RECEPTION AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCAL17/2011
Recordings lawfully obtained under Australian authorization do not constitute "telecommunications interception product" under s.61(1) ICSO because the statutory definition of relevant prescribed authorization refers to Hong Kong authorised interceptions; the Australian arrest warrant and attached Court Attendance Notice constituted properly authenticated supporting documents and sufficiently disclosed conspiracy; therefore the habeas corpus application fails and the committal stands.