Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Hksar v Yeung Ho Nam

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date02 December 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] HKCA 1285
Judgement NumberCACC361/2018
Citation[2020] 1 HKLRD 116
Year2019
Subject MatterCriminal Appeal
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
CACC361A/2018 HKSAR v. YEUNG HO NAM

CACC 361/2018

[2019] HKCA 1285

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 361 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO 285 OF 2018)

_________________

HKSAR Respondent
v
YEUNG Ho Nam (楊浩南) Appellant

_________________

Before: Hon McWalters, Zervos JJA and M Poon J in Court
Dates of Written Submissions on Costs: 5 and 6 November 2019
Date of Judgment on Costs: 2 December 2019

_____________________________

JUDGMENT ON COSTS

_____________________________

Hon Zervos JA (giving the Judgment on Costs of the Court):

1. On 25 September 2019, this Court allowed the appellant’s appeal against sentence in respect of two counts of unlawful homosexual buggery with a man under the age of 16 and over the age of 13, contrary to section 118C(a) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200, and reduced his total sentence of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment to 10 months’ imprisonment.

2. The appellant now applies for costs of the appeal. He specifically seeks the costs of (1) the leave application which was treated as the substantive appeal hearing; (2) the legal advice prior to the application for leave to appeal; (3) the application for bail pending appeal; and (4) the present costs application.

3. The application is made pursuant to section 9(2)(b) of the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance, Cap 492, (the Ordinance), which provides that in relation to a sentence appeal the Court of Appeal may award the appellant’s costs where it imposes a less severe punishment to the one that was imposed in the court below.

4. The general principles applicable to costs in criminal cases are set out under section 15 of the Ordinance. It provides, amongst other things, that the costs awarded in any criminal proceedings should be “just and reasonable” and should not be punitive but should be such sums as appear reasonably sufficient to compensate a party for any expenses properly incurred by him in the course of those proceedings, including any proceedings preliminary or incidental thereto.

5. It was held in HKSAR v Tang Siu Fung (No 2) [2012] 2 HKLRD 1038 that orders for costs should normally be made in favour of a successful appellant unless there are specific reasons of opposition for not doing so from the respondent. Such reasons, include the grounds of appeal and the conduct of the various parties in the appeal hearing, including the conduct of the legal representatives for the appellant.

6. In the circumstances, a successful appellant would normally be awarded his costs on appeal provided that the expenses are properly incurred in the course of those proceedings, including any proceedings preliminary or incidental thereto.

7. In light of the grounds of the appeal and the conduct of the appellant in the course of this appeal, resulting in a successful outcome against his sentence, there is no reason why, in those circumstances, an order for...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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