Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Surveillance

Legal area

Court

7 Nov 2024

CHAN LONG NING, CHRISTINE v. DRAGON GUARD SECURITY LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2989
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1873/2024

The applications were dismissed/permitted withdrawal because the complaints principally arise from private employment matters and District Court proceedings which are not amenable to judicial review; the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law error, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused and HCAL 1874/2024 was permitted to be withdrawn.
22 May 2012

HKSAR v. MUHAMMAD RIAZ KHAN

Citation

HKSAR v. MUHAMMAD RIAZ KHAN
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC13/2010

The court held that evidence obtained in breach of a defendant's constitutional rights may nevertheless be admitted under a discretionary balancing test: admission is permissible if it is conducive to a fair trial, reconcilable with respect for the right(s) infringed, and unlikely to encourage future breaches. Applying that test to the secretly recorded hotel-room conversation, the recording was properly admitted and the appellant's conviction was upheld.
2 Jul 2010

HKSAR v. MUHAMMAD RIAZ KHAN

Citation

HKSAR v. MUHAMMAD RIAZ KHAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC125/2003

The application for a certificate was dismissed because the applicant gave no sufficient reason for the 31‑month delay and because the proposed points of law are resolvable by settled law of the jurisdiction; consequently no certificate was granted.
10 Aug 2006

KHAN SHIRAZ v. YEE LEE SEA-LAND FORWARDING CO LTD

Citation

KHAN SHIRAZ v. YEE LEE SEA-LAND FORWARDING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI323/2004

Because the defendant's expert commented on surveillance tapes without prior leave, thereby necessitating an unnecessary further supplemental report from the plaintiff's expert, the court ordered the defendant to bear the cost of that report; covert surveillance itself was not penalised but the unauthorised use of expert commentary was the decisive fault.
17 Dec 1996

R. v. NGO KIN-SHING

Citation

R. v. NGO KIN-SHING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC181/1996

The Court held the trial judge's summing up was fair and adequate on the central issues, left credibility matters to the jury, and the convictions were therefore safe; leave to appeal was refused.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHAN LONG NING, CHRISTINE v. DRAGON GUARD SECURITY LTD

HKSAR v. MUHAMMAD RIAZ KHAN

HKSAR v. MUHAMMAD RIAZ KHAN

KHAN SHIRAZ v. YEE LEE SEA-LAND FORWARDING CO LTD

R. v. NGO KIN-SHING