Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Witness availability

Legal area

Court

17 Oct 2024

香港特別行政區訴何波添 Ronny

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1556
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC696/2023

The court granted the extension and allowed the witness to testify by video link because the prosecution acted reasonably once it had confirmation of technical availability, the delay was not unnecessary, the witness was a key witness who would not return to Hong Kong, adequate arrangements existed to ensure testimony free from coercion, and permitting video-link testimony was less prejudicial to the administration of justice than adjournment or withdrawal of the prosecution; the impact on the defendant's fair trial rights was assessed as minimal and manageable.
7 May 2024

香港特別行政區訴詹培忠及另二人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1411
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC439/2022

The application to stay was dismissed because the court found no evidence of deliberate or planned prosecutorial delay or abuse of process; the lengthy investigation was ongoing and involved complexity justifying time taken; alleged witness loss or memory deterioration was not proven to cause prejudice; and a stay is a remedy of last resort.
31 Jan 2024

HKSAR v. CHOW YIU CHUNG

Citation

[2024] HKDC 194
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC663/2022

The application for a permanent stay was refused because the police and prosecution acted reasonably without bad faith or serious fault, the materials and witnesses necessary for trial were obtainable or had been obtained, the delay was explicable and did not cause irremediable prejudice, and continuation of the trial would not offend the court’s sense of justice or undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.
29 Jun 2023

HKSAR v. CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1719
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC309/2019

The judge held the defence failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that a fair trial is impossible or that continuation would constitute an abuse of process; remedial measures (ordering prosecution to call or tender two witnesses, providing prior transcripts to witnesses, use of MLA) mitigate prejudice from delay and memory loss; previous detailed analysis by DHCJ Bruce supporting retrial fairness was persuasive; therefore stay refused.
4 Dec 2020

CHINA INTERNATIONAL FUND LTD v. WEST CHINA CEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2976
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1889/2019

Defendants failed to show that Maputo is clearly or distinctly more appropriate than Hong Kong because the alleged conspiratorial agreement and the defendants' decision-making largely occurred in Mainland China (PRC law likely governs the conspiracy), and there is a real risk that CIF would be deprived of a legitimate juridical advantage in Mozambique due to witness availability and potential political influence; accordingly the stay application is dismissed.
2 Sept 2016

ELIJAH SAATORI v. RAFFLES MEDICAL GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

ELIJAH SAATORI v. RAFFLES MEDICAL GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1114/2006

Adjournment refused. The plaintiff caused or contributed to the late revocation of his legal aid by failing to update his means in time and by late disclosure of a settlement; no exceptional circumstances justified varying the milestone trial date; defendant would suffer real prejudice (witness availability, substantial irrecoverable costs) and could not be adequately compensated; the plaintiff can proceed in person and had rejected modest assistance options, so discretion to adjourn was not exercised.
22 Mar 2016

VELATEL GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS INC AND ANOTHER v. CHINACOMM LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

VELATEL GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS INC AND ANOTHER v. CHINACOMM LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1978/2011

The summons to vacate trial dates was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide credible first‑hand or documentary evidence of unavailability, delayed informing his solicitors, did not attempt available alternatives such as video‑link or letters of request, and the adjournment would cause substantial prejudice to the plaintiffs given the significant sums at stake and prior findings of dissipation; consequently leave to adduce a new witness statement was refused and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.
19 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. NG CHUN TO RAYMOND AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. NG CHUN TO RAYMOND AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC178/2010

Given the gravity, scale and sophistication of the warrant‑pushing scheme, the substantial sums involved, the strength of the circumstantial evidence and the plausible lead role of D1, the interests of justice required a retrial of D1 on Charges 1‑4; by contrast retrial of D4 was refused because she had served her sentence (with remission), the delay and prejudice of re‑trial would be oppressive and confiscation issues could be addressed without a new conviction for property in her possession under s102 CPO.
3 Feb 2012

HKSAR v. CHUNG YUET SHEUNG, LORRAIN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHUNG YUET SHEUNG, LORRAIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC408/2009

The court refused the DPP's application to reopen its prior determination and order a retrial because, on the facts and having regard to the perfection rule and the highly exceptional nature of any residual discretion to vary a decision, it was not appropriate to reopen the matter. The prosecution had withdrawn its application in open court, the appellant would suffer prejudice and uncertainty, and the prosecution was largely responsible for its own change of position; accordingly the court would not vary its earlier effective decision to make no order for retrial and directed that the convic…
17 Mar 2011

SINGH CHAMKAUR v. RICHARD ETHAN LATKER t/a SINO INDIAN TRADE ENTERPRISES

Citation

SINGH CHAMKAUR v. RICHARD ETHAN LATKER t/a SINO INDIAN TRADE ENTERPRISES
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV270/2009

The applications were dismissed because the asserted new evidence did not constitute matters occurring after the judgment nor did it amount to prima facie evidence of fraud, the proposed witness was available and could have been called with reasonable diligence at trial, and the requirements for leave to appeal under section 22 Cap. 484 were not met; accordingly leave to appeal and the stay were refused and costs were awarded.