HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal2011

HKSAR v. LEUNG LONG YIN

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR11/1997HKSAR v. YIP CHI TUNG
  • CAAR1/1998HKSAR v. LING VERONICA
  • CAAR12/1996HKSAR v. WONG KWONG YICK
  • CAAR6/1998HKSAR v. LAU SHIU KONG AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR6/2012HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK CHI
  • CAAR9/2001HKSAR v. WONG TO LEUNG
  • CACC100/1997HKSAR v. YU HON CHUN
  • CACC100/1999HKSAR v. LAM CHI KIN
  • CACC100/2000HKSAR v. SHING KUEN KIN
  • CACC100/2001HKSAR v. OU YANG MING CHYUAN
  • CACC100/2002HKSAR v. CHAN LAI SING AND ANOTHER
  • CACC100/2003HKSAR v. CHENG CHONG SHING
  • CACC100/2022HKSAR v. LIMBU PRASHANT
  • CACC101/1997HKSAR v. YIU KENNETH LIK KIN
  • CACC101/2001HKSAR v. LEUNG KWAI PING
  • CACC101/2021HKSAR v. WONG CHI FUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/1997HKSAR v. MAN KAM SHING
  • CACC10/1998HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN TAK
  • CACC10/2001HKSAR v. TAM KWAI KEUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/2002HKSAR v. WONG WAN SHAN
79881-EN-2011-12-21

HKSAR v. LEUNG LONG YIN

HTML content

HCMA 599/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 599 OF 2011

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 4715 OF 2010)

____________

BETWEEN

 HKSARRespondent

and

 LEUNG LONG YIN(梁朗然)Appellant

____________

Before: The Honourable Mrs Justice V Bokhary in Court

Date of Hearing: 21 December 2011

Date of Judgment: 21 December 2011

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

 

1.  The Appellant was acquitted in the Magistrate’s Court on a charge of indecent assault but was refused costs because the Magistrate (Marco Li Esq.) took the view that he had brought suspicion upon himself. The Appellant now appeals against that refusal of costs.

2.  The refusal of costs was based to a material extent on the Appellant’s failure to proclaim his innocence at once.  In not doing that, the Appellant was exercising his right to silence.  A person’s exercise of his right of silence is not to be treated as bringing suspicion upon himself so as to justify depriving him of costs upon his acquittal.  

3.  The appeal is allowed to award the Appellant his trial costs. 

[The Appellant asked for his costs of the appeal and the Respondent did not oppose such costs.]

4.  I award the Appellant his costs of this appeal.

(V. Bokhary)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Ms Gekko Lan, instructed by Messrs Li, Wong, Lam & W I Cheung, for the Appellant

Ms Eva Chan, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent