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

Secretary For Justice v Lai Chee Ying

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date13 April 2022
Neutral Citation[2022] HKCFI 923
Judgement NumberHCMA138/2021
Subject MatterMagistracy Appeal
CourtCourt of First Instance (Hong Kong)
HCMA138A/2021 SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAI CHEE YING

HCMA 138/2021

[2022] HKCFI 923

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 138 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM WKCC 956 OF 2020)

_________________

BETWEEN
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE Appellant

and
LAI CHEE YING Respondent

_________________

Before: Hon Andrew Chan J in Court
Date of Decision: 13 April 2022

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1. Following an unsuccessful appeal by way of Case Stated pursuant to s105 of the Magistrates Ordinance Cap. 227 by the Appellant, the Respondent applied for costs.

2. The Respondent was charged with one count of criminal intimidation, contrary to Section 24(a)(i) of the Crimes Ordinance Cap. 200. The trial took place over 4 days from 20 to 28 August 2020 and the Respondent was found not guilty on 3 September 2020. The Appellant appealed against the Magistrate’s decision by way of Case Stated on 17 September 2020.

3. Following the common practice, the Appellant drafted the Case and sought comments from solicitors for the Respondent. In their reply, solicitors for the Respondent indicated that the Case should simply include all the transcripts of the witnesses together with exhibits and the Magistrate’s Brief Reasons for Verdict. One can immediately see that the approach suggested, to say the least, was contrary to legal principles laid down by the Court of Appeal regarding appeal by way of case stated[1].

4. Given the disagreement between the parties, the Case was sent together with the objection from the Respondent to the Magistrate for her consideration. The Magistrate however did not accept the Case and instead prepared one on her own which likewise annexed with it 126 pages of transcripts of evidence, speeches from the respective parties together with her Brief Reasons for Verdict. Not satisfying with the Case prepared by the Magistrate, the Appellant then applied to this Court for an Order of Mandamus directing the Magistrate to amend her Case pursuant to s112 of the Magistrates Ordinance (the Mandamus Application).

5. The Respondent opposed the Mandamus Application. It was heard on 4 June 2021 and an Order for Mandamus was issued. As a result, the Magistrate signed the Case which had become a self-containing document setting out all the relevant facts and the reasons for her decision.

6. The appeal was heard on 29 October 2021. On 20 December 2021, judgment was handed down dismissing the appeal.

7. Section 120 of the Magistrates Ordinance provides that the judge may make such costs order as he thinks fit on any appeal to which s105 applies. In other words, this Court enjoys a wide discretion in awarding costs. In the present case, the Mandamus Application formed part of the appeal process.

8. The Appellant accepted in principle that costs should follow the event but argued that there were good reasons in the present case in departing from the norm and...

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