Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Withdrawal of charges

Legal area

Court

2 Mar 2022

HKSAR v. WONG WAI KIT AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKDC 139
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC864/2019

The court refused D1 costs because independent and credible evidence accepted by a competent mainland court corroborated the complainant and showed D1’s conduct brought suspicion upon him; the court refused certification for two counsel because the attendance of two counsel was not justified by the nature, complexity or time of the proceedings before it; and D3’s s17 claim failed because the LOR application was a proper statutory step and was not unnecessary, negligent or improper.
28 Apr 2015

HKSAR v. KOTAGARALAHALLI PEDDAPPAIAH NAGARAJA

Citation

HKSAR v. KOTAGARALAHALLI PEDDAPPAIAH NAGARAJA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA707/2014

On the agreed facts and documentary exhibits the magistrate legitimately concluded the appellant had de facto control of the KPN account, engaged in transactions and transfers to BT (of which he was sole director and signatory) that created a reasonable and positive suspicion of his involvement. Those positive reasons justified the exercise of discretion to refuse costs under s.3 Cap 492; the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the magistrate's refusal to award costs.
21 Nov 2014

香港特別行政區訴高旨康

Citation

香港特別行政區訴高旨康
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA405/2014

The magistrate wrongly exercised discretion by relying on uncorroborated and contested prosecution assertions to deprive the appellant of costs; in the absence of independent evidence linking the appellant to the offence, the appellant's silence under caution could not properly be treated as self-suspicion and therefore the appeal must be allowed and costs awarded.
27 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA86/2013

Appeals dismissed. For the 16 respondents heard 14 January 2013 the magistrate did not err in awarding costs because the prosecution was insufficiently prepared and failed to provide summaries of facts or authorities; for the three respondents heard 18 February 2013 the magistrate erred in procedure by relying on earlier awards and not following Lam Chiu Fong, but on the merits those respondents had not brought suspicion on themselves and thus were entitled to costs; costs of the appeals ordered to respondents, taxed if not agreed.
27 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA91/2013

Magistrates must follow the procedural guidance in Lam Chiu Fong and Hui Yui Sang when considering costs after withdrawal; where the prosecution is unprepared and provides no summary of facts a magistrate may properly award costs; where prosecution does provide summaries and authorities the magistrate must give reasons for her exercise of discretion; deprivation of costs requires positive findings that the defendant's conduct brought suspicion on himself, which was not established on the evidence here; accordingly the appeals were dismissed and the magistrate's costs orders upheld.
27 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA143/2013

The court dismissed the prosecution's appeals. It held the PM did not err in awarding costs on 14 January 2013 because the prosecution was underprepared and failed to provide summaries or authorities; although the PM erred procedurally on 18 February 2013 by not following Lam Chiu Fong and by relying on parity with earlier awards, after full consideration the respondents had not brought suspicion on themselves and there was no positive reason to deprive them of costs; costs of the appeals were ordered to the respondents to be taxed if not agreed.
27 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA89/2013

The prosecution appeals are dismissed. The magistrate did not err in awarding costs on 14 January 2013 given the prosecution's failure to provide summaries or evidence; although the magistrate erred in procedure on 18 February 2013 by not following Lam Chiu Fong and relying on earlier awards, on the merits the three respondents had not brought suspicion on themselves and there was no positive reason to deprive them of costs, so the costs orders stand.
27 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA96/2013

The appeals are dismissed. The magistrate did not err in awarding costs to respondents on 14 January 2013 because the prosecution was not prepared and failed to provide summaries of facts or authorities; on 18 February 2013 the magistrate erred in procedure and by relying on earlier awards but, on the merits, the respondents had not brought suspicion on themselves and so costs were properly awarded; accordingly the prosecution's appeals fail and the respondents are entitled to costs of the appeals, to be taxed if not agreed.
27 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA83/2013

The magistrate's awards of costs were upheld: where the prosecution failed to present summaries of facts or authorities the magistrate did not err in awarding costs; where the prosecution complied with procedural requirements the magistrate should apply Lam Chiu Fong, but on the merits the respondents had not shown conduct that 'brought suspicion on themselves' and there was no positive reason to deny costs; appeals dismissed and costs of the appeals ordered to the respondents.
27 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK PAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA85/2013

Appeals dismissed. For summonses withdrawn on 14 January 2013 the magistrate did not err in awarding costs because the prosecution was unprepared and failed to provide summaries of facts or evidence on which to oppose costs; for summonses withdrawn on 18 February 2013 the magistrate erred in procedure by failing to apply Lam Chiu Fong and by relying on prior awards, but on the merits the respondents had not demonstrated they had 'brought suspicion on themselves' given legitimate reasons for withdrawal (lapse of time, roles, likely penalty) and insufficient positive evidence of wrongdoing, the…