30 Dec 2022
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board had already allowed the applicant's appeal and found he was entitled to non-refoulement protection, thus any judicial review would be otiose and serve no practical purpose.
20 Apr 2022
The court has inherent jurisdiction to grant anonymity and non-disclosure orders (including use of screens and special passage) where necessary to protect witness safety and privacy and where, after balancing open justice and defendants' fair trial rights, the orders do not render the trial unfair; on the facts the prosecution provided sufficient justification and the orders were proportionate, so they were granted for the 33 SDU officers.
15 Dec 2021
法院審酌控方提供的風險及保護需要、被告方不主張會因此蒙受不公平審訊，以及公眾仍可聽取庭上證供後，認為控方已交付足夠理據並就各方利益作出平衡，故批准對9名證人頒發身分保密令、禁止披露、屏障及特別通道等保護措施。
23 Oct 2009
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to recover costs of the District Court trial insofar as they relate to Charges 4 and 5 because the convictions were set aside for failure to prove actus reus and mens rea; costs previously refused in respect of acquitted conspiracy charges in the District Court remain unchallengeable on appeal under the CCCO absent judicial review; the prosecutor's application under s32(2) HKCFAO was not 'without merit' and therefore no costs were ordered under s9B CCCO in respect of that application.
11 Oct 2004
The Court of Appeal concluded it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because proceedings under s85 IGCO for search and seizure of journalistic material are criminal in nature for the purposes of s13 HCO and therefore not within the Court of Appeal's civil appellate jurisdiction; accordingly the appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
9 Sept 2004
The writ was discharged because the respondent produced clear and cogent evidence—principally W's own affirmed statement supported by ICAC affidavits—that W had voluntarily entered a witness protection programme and was not being unlawfully detained; further, the applicant's supporting affirmations were deficient and tainted by non‑disclosure of material associations, undermining any prima facie case and indicating potential abuse of process, and the statutory protections and purpose of the Witness Protection Ordinance justified in camera handling and refusal to compel the protected participa…
23 Apr 1996
The application was dismissed because the immunity was granted after the plea and, crucially, its wording only covered involvement in the specified conspiracies or offences disclosed to police or in testimony and did not encompass the trafficking offence for which the applicant was convicted; consequently the immunity did not negate the conviction and the out of time appeal was refused.