Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Witness anonymity

Legal area

Court

27 Dec 2023

HKSAR v. GURUNG ASHIS AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1710
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC269/2020

The judge found the two identification parades were not fairly conducted and excluded Exhibits PP30 and PP35; without those identifications the prosecution had no evidence linking D1 and D2 to the robbers beyond presence near the scene and admissions of running, which did not amount to bringing suspicion upon themselves; therefore charges were dismissed and the defence application for costs was granted (D1 from Day 5; D2 for the trial).
31 Aug 2022

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. ATAL BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCT 4
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA2/2022

The President declined to order the proposed redactions at that hearing, adjourned the confidentiality application for the Commission to provide specific evidence and/or amend the Originating Notice, waived any procedural irregularity in timing of the application, and ordered that the confidentiality ring shall include the individual respondents and the directors of corporate respondents unless the Commission adduces credible, specific evidence justifying otherwise.
4 Jun 2022

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TANG LIN LING

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2467
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2929/2015

Unlawful photography inside the courtroom constituted criminal contempt because it risked identification and intimidation of jurors and witnesses, substantially disrupted proceedings, and warranted deterrent punishment; having regard to the respondent's remorse and absence of specific intent the appropriate sentence was seven days' imprisonment.
4 Jun 2022

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TANG LIN LING

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2467
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2917/2015

Taking photographs inside court in breach of court rules amounts to criminal contempt because it risks identification and intimidation of jurors and witnesses, disrupts proceedings and the administration of justice; notwithstanding lack of specific malicious intent and remorse, a custodial sentence is necessary for deterrence and to reflect the disruption and potential misuse of images, so a sentence of 7 days' imprisonment was imposed.
4 Jun 2022

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TANG LIN LING

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2467
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2925/2015

Unlawful taking of photographs inside court constitutes criminal contempt because it risks juror and witness anonymity and safety, disrupts court proceedings and public resources, and enables misuse of images; applying these principles and the respondent's lack of intent but demonstrated disruption and partial remorse, a custodial sentence of 7 days' imprisonment is appropriate to punish and deter.
15 Dec 2021

香港特別行政區訴羅偉洛及另八人

Citation

[2022] HKDC 16
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC35/2021

The court concluded prosecution provided sufficient evidence that disclosure posed real risks to Special Duties Unit members and their ability to perform duties, less restrictive alternatives were inadequate to remove the risk of exposure, defence fairness would not be prejudiced and public interest in open justice would not be materially impaired; therefore the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to grant anonymity, non-disclosure, use of screen and special passage for nine prosecution witnesses.
23 Feb 2017

HKSAR v. CHAN YIU SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 311
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC41/2016

The application was granted: police officers whose duties include conducting surveillance may give evidence from behind a screen where anonymity is necessary for future duties because the arrangement does not materially offend open justice and appropriate jury directions will prevent prejudice to the defendants.
19 Jan 2000

NG CHI KIN v. HKSAR

Citation

NG CHI KIN v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC34/1999

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the grounds advanced were either irrelevant to the convictions or were not grounds on which the applicant could succeed on appeal; accordingly leave to appeal is refused and the Court reiterated it does not function as a second court of criminal appeal.