Hksar v Lai, Chee Ying

Judgment Date18 June 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] HKCFI 1249
Judgement NumberHCCP289/2020
Citation[2020] 3 HKLRD 320
Year2020
Subject MatterMiscellaneous Proceedings (Criminal)
CourtCourt of First Instance (Hong Kong)
HCCP289/2020 HKSAR v. LAI, CHEE YING

HCCP 289/2020

[2020] HKCFI 1249

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 289 OF 2020

________________________

BETWEEN
HKSAR Respondent

and

Lai, Chee Ying (黎智英) Applicant

________________________

Before: Hon Alex Lee J in Chambers (Open to Public)
Date of Hearing: 12 June 2020
Date of Ruling: 12 June 2020
Date of Reasons for Ruling: 18 June 2020

________________________

REASONS FOR RULING

________________________

Introduction

1. This is about the applicant’s application for variation of bail. The matter was first listed before me on 22 May 2020. On that occasion, by consent of the parties I ordered that the applicant’s reporting condition be removed. As regards his application to lift the travel restriction, as he had not submitted any concrete travel plan to the court for consideration, that respect of his application was adjourned sine die, with liberty to restore.

2. On 15 June 2020, the applicant renewed his application to lift the travel restriction. Having considered affirmation evidence filed by both sides and submissions from counsel, I dismissed the application, saying that the reasons would be handed down in due course. This I now do.

Background

3. The present application relates to the charge of criminal intimidation which the applicant is facing (WKCC 956 of 2020). He has been granted bail for that case on conditions one of which being the travel ban.

4. Apart from the aforesaid charge, my attention is drawn by Mr Bruce, SC (and with him, Ms Fanny Wong), counsel for the respondent, to the fact that the applicant has also been charged with other offences in separate proceedings as follows:

(i) “knowingly taking part in an unauthorized assembly (WKCC 957/2020);

(ii) “organizing an unauthorized assembly” and “knowing taking part in an unauthorised assembly” (WKCC 1265/2020); and

(iii) “organizing an unauthorized assembly” and “knowing taking part in an unauthorised assembly” (WKCC 1266/2020).

I am told that the prosecution will apply on 15 June 2020 for the above three cases to be transferred to the District Court for trial. I note also that the applicant has been granted bail in the aforesaid three cases without any travel restriction.

5. Besides, I am told that Police have applied for summons to be issued against the applicant and three others for “incitement to knowingly take part in an unauthorized assembly” in relation to an assembly on 4 June 2020.

The present application

6. The applicant now asks that the travel ban currently imposed upon him be lifted for the period between 24 June 2020 and 19 July 2020, so that he may visit the United States for four specific purposes:

(1) to visit his daughter and her new born baby who live in New York City and to spend time with the family there;

(2) to go to Buffalo City in New York State to meet members of his staff from Canada to discuss business plans for his two hotel chains which operate in Canada;

(3) to go to Washington DC to meet a service provider of his newspaper (Apply Daily) and also to meet representatives of some media companies to promote the recently developed English section of Apply Daily; and

(4) to discuss a possible acquisition of a hotel in Little Washington VA.

7. I note that the applicant’s trial (WKCC 956 of 2020) is scheduled to commence on 19 August this year, with 3 days reserved.

Consideration

Relevance of applicant’s other cases

8. Technically speaking, although the present application is only about the travel ban in relation to the case of criminal intimidation (WKCC 956 of 2020) and despite the fact that he has been granted bail in other cases without any travel restrictions, both parties agree that this court should take a “holistic” view in the overall risk assessment, rather than just focusing on the case from which this application originates.

Legal principles

9. As the applicant has already been granted bail pending trial. The travel restriction to a certain extent limited his freedom of movement, but not his personal liberty in Hong Kong. For the purpose of this application, he is not asking this court to remove the travel restriction altogether. The only issue for this court to decide is whether it is appropriate in all the circumstances to lift temporarily his travel ban during the aforesaid period for the stated purposes.

10. The relevant legal principles are as summarized in my recent judgment in HKSAR v Wong Chi Fung [2020] 2 HKLRD 56 which I am not going to repeat. It suffices for me to reiterate what I have said at paragraph 35 of that judgment that, “in the final analysis the issue about the necessity and proportionality of a travel restriction on bail is always case-specific...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Hksar v Lai, Chee Ying
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of First Instance (Hong Kong)
    • 29 December 2020
    ...§21. [14] First Affirmation of Senior Inspector Lo Man Fai, dated 16.12.2020. [15] Ibid, at §13(6)-(7). [16] See HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying [2020] 3 HKLRD 320, in relation to WKCC 956/2020, of which the Applicant is eventually acquitted. The prosecution has since sought a case-stated appeal. [17......
  • Hksar v Lai, Chee Ying
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of First Instance (Hong Kong)
    • 29 December 2020
    ...§21. [14] First Affirmation of Senior Inspector Lo Man Fai, dated 16.12.2020. [15] Ibid, at §13(6)-(7). [16] See HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying [2020] 3 HKLRD 320, in relation to WKCC 956/2020, of which the Applicant is eventually acquitted. The prosecution has since sought a case-stated appeal. [17......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT