Case Detail

HCMP 2917 ‑ 2922/2015,
2924 - 2932/2015 &
575/2018
(Heard together)

[2018] HKCFI 2396

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NOs 2917 to 2922,

2924 to 2932 OF 2015 AND 575 OF 2018

_________________

	IN THE MATTER of an application by the Secretary for Justice for leave to apply for an Order of Committal
	and
	IN THE MATTER of civil proceedings in HCA 2086/2014

________________________

BETWEEN
	SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE	Applicant
	and
	SIEW YUN LONG	Respondent in HCMP 2917/2015
	(蕭雲龍)
	MAN FOR ON	Respondent in HCMP 2918/2015
	(文伙安)
	LAI YU SING	Respondent in HCMP 2919/2015
	(黎宇聲)
	LAW WAI YAN	Respondent in HCMP 2920/2015
	(羅慧茵)
	CHAN JEFFREY	Respondent in HCMP 2921/2015
	(陳子勳)	& HCMP 575/2018
	CHAN WAI FUNG	Respondent in HCMP 2922/2015
	(陳瑋鋒)
	CHU SUI YING	Respondent in HCMP 2924/2015
	(朱瑞英)
	YUNG YIU SING	Respondent in HCMP 2925/2015
	(翁耀聲)
	WONG KA YEE	Respondent in HCMP 2926/2015
	(黃嘉義)
	KONG KAM TO	Respondent in HCMP 2927/2015
	(江金桃)
	CHAN AO TIEN	Respondent in HCMP 2928/2015
	(陳遨天)
	CHAN PAK TAO	Respondent in HCMP 2929/2015
	(陳柏陶)
	CHAN WING WAH	Respondent in HCMP 2930/2015
	(陳榮華)
	LOU TIT MAN	Respondent in HCMP 2931/2015
	(劉鐵民)
	LEUNG HON LAM	Respondent in HCMP 2932/2015
	(梁翰林)

_________________

(Heard together)

Before: Hon Andrew Chan J in Court

Dates of Hearing: 15, 18, 23, 28, 29, 30 and 31 May 2018; and 4, 5, 6, 13 and 25 June 2018; and 11, 12 and 13 September 2018

Date of Sentence: 26 October 2018

Date of Reasons for Sentence: 26 October 2018

__________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

__________________________

HCMP 2917/2015 Siew Yun Long

1. The respondent in this case Mr Siew Yun Long was at the material time 29 and has been working as a freelance documentary photographer since 2014. He was found guilty after trial.

2. His acts and conducts on the material day had been described in my judgment handed down on 31 August 2018 to which I shall not repeat. Essentially Mr Siew was found to be present in the Area for an extended period of time, from 9:57 am to 3:10 pm. Apart from taking photographs and staging in the protest, he was not seen to be involved in any other activities. Mr Siew was not affiliated to any political party. He also enjoys a clear record.

3. Given the limited role Mr Siew played on the material day, a suspended sentence combined with a fine will be sufficient in his case. In view of the fact that Mr Siew was found guilty after trial, he will be fined a sum of $15,000 and given an imprisonment term of 6 weeks but suspended for 12 months. Mr Siew will have 3 months to pay the sum. In default, he will go to prison for 6 weeks.

4. The effect of the sentence being suspended is that if Mr Siew during the suspension period, commits any offences which involve a breach of the peace, the 6weeks’ custodial sentence imposed today may be activated and that he may be liable to serve the 6 weeks’ sentence. Hopefully, this serves as a sufficient deterrence. The effect of the sentence being suspended also applies to other respondents who are similarly given a suspended sentence below.

HCMP 2918/2015 Man For On

5. The respondent in this case Mr Man For On was 53 at the material time and is currently unemployed. He worked as a skilled worker before June 2018. Mr Man has no political affiliation and enjoys a clear record. He was found guilty after trial.

6. His acts and conducts on the material day had been described in my judgment handed down on 31 August 2018. In Mr Man’s case, he was found to be present in the Area for approximately 20 minutes, shortly before his arrest by the police.

7. Apart from refusing to leave the Area, Mr Man was not involved in the organisation of the protest. He also did not struggle with the police when being arrested.

8. Given the limited role Mr Man played, a suspended sentence combined with a fine will be sufficient in his case. Since Mr Man was found guilty after trial, he will be fined a sum of $15,000 and given an imprisonment term of 6 weeks but suspended for 12 months. Mr Man will have 6 months to pay the sum. In default, he will go to prison for 6 weeks.

HCMP 2919/2015 Lai Yu Sing

9. The respondent in this case Mr Lai Yu Sing was in his mid‑50s and a salesman at the material time. He left his employment soon after his arrest by the police. He has been living on his savings since then.

10. Mr Lai admitted his liability. He was found to be present in the Area shortly before his arrest despite repeated warnings given. Apart from refusing to leave the Area, Mr Lai was not involved in the organisation of the protest. He was not affiliated to any political party and has a clear record.

11. Given the limited role played by Mr Lai, he will be fined a sum of $10,000 and given an imprisonment term of 1 month but suspended for 12 months. Mr Lai will have 6 months to pay the sum. In default, he will go to prison for 1 month.

HCMP 2920/2015 Law Wai Yan

12. The respondent in this case Ms Law Wai Yan was 25 and worked in the media industry at the material time. She left the industry in 2017 and is now working as a chef in London. Her average monthly income after tax is HK$13,000.

13. Ms Law admitted her liability. She was found to be present in the Area shortly after 12 noon and between 2 pm and 3 pm before her arrest. Other than refusing to leave the Area, Ms Law was not involved in the organisation of the protest. She did not resort to any violence or struggle with the police. Ms Law has a clear record and was not affiliated to any political organisation.

14. Given the limited role played by Ms Law, she will be fined a sum of $10,000 and given an imprisonment term of 1 month but suspended for 12 months. Ms Law will have 3 months to pay the fine. In default, she will go to prison for 1 month.

HCMP 2921/2015 and HCMP 575/2018 Chan Jeffrey

15. The respondent in this case Mr Chan Jeffrey was at the material time 42 and is currently a recipient of comprehensive social benefits due to his mental conditions.

16. Mr Chan admitted his liability. He was found to be present in the Area between 10:10 am and 3:05 pm. Apart from taking photographs and videos and refusing to leave the Area, Mr Chan was not engaged in any other activities. He has a clear record and was not affiliated to any political organisation. He was not involved in the organisation of the protest.

17. Given the limited role played by Mr Chan and his personal circumstances, he will be given an imprisonment term of 1 month but suspended for 12 months with no additional financial penalty.

HCMP 2922/2015 Chan Wai Fung

18. The respondent in this case Mr Chan Wai Fung was 17 and a student at the material time. Currently he is working as a waiter on part‑time basis, making several thousand dollars a month.

19. Mr Chan admitted his liability. He was found to be present in the Area shortly before his arrest. Mr Chan was not affiliated to any political party and has a clear record. He was also not involved in the organisation of the protest.

20. Given the limited role played by Mr Chan, he will be fined $10,000 and given an imprisonment term of 1 month but suspended for 12 months. Mr Chan will have 6 months to pay the sum. In default, he will go to prison for 1 month.

HCMP 2924/2015 Chu Sui Ying

21. The respondent in this case Ms Chu Sui Ying was 41 and a social worker at the material time. Currently she is unemployed but actively looking for jobs in the social service industry.

22. Ms Chu admitted her liability. She was found to be present in the Area between 11:47 am and 3:10 pm. Whilst being present in the Area, she spoke to the crowd and questioned the involvement and / or the legality of the police in the clearance operation. Essentially Ms Chu challenged the authority of the police and refused to leave the Area despite being asked to do so on a number of occasions. Having said that, Ms Chu did not resort to any violence. Nor did she put up any resistance when being arrested by the police. Ms Chu was not affiliated to any political party and has a clear record.

23. Given the limited role played by Ms Chu, she will be fined $10,000 and given an imprisonment term of 1 month but suspended for 12 months. Ms Chu will have 6 months to pay the sum. In default, she will go to prison for 1 month.

HCMP 2925/2015 Yung Yiu Sing

24. The respondent in this case Mr Yung Yiu Sing was 19 and a social work student of the Hong Kong College of Technology at the material time. He now works for a non-governmental organisation as an officer on a part‑time basis, earning $4,000 a month on average. He was found guilty after trial.

25. Mr Yung was found to be present in the Area between 9:54 am and 3:10 pm. He was seen holding a loudhailer and assisting others to make broadcast to the crowd throughout the day. Mr Yung has a clear record and was not affiliated to any political party. In mitigation, it was submitted that the T-shirt Mr Yung wore was designed by the Social Work Department of his college whereas the loudhailer was on loan from the Hong Kong Federation of Students.

26. The role played by Mr Yung was not confined to mere presence. He assisted others in making broadcast to the crowd which in turn caused wholly unnecessary delay in the clearance operation. It is however accepted that when being arrested, Mr Yung did not put up any resistance. Bearing in mind the sentences imposed on others who had committed similar activities, Mr Yung will be fined $15,000 and given an imprisonment term of 2 months but suspended for 18 months. Because of his limited financial resources, Mr Yung will have 10 months to pay the sum. In default, he will go to prison for 2 months.

HCMP 2926/2015 Wong Ka Yee

27. The respondent in this case Ms Wong Ka Yee was 53 at the material time and presently works as an osteochiropractic manipulative provider on part-time basis. She manages to make several thousands each month.

28. Ms Wong admitted her liability. She was found to be present in the Area between 2:38 pm and 3:09 pm. She also has a clear record and was not affiliated to any political organisation. Ms Wong was also not involved in the organisation of the protest.

29. Given the limited role played by Ms Wong, she will be fined $10,000 and given an imprisonment term of 1 month but suspended for 12 months. Ms Wong will have 6 months to pay for the sum. In default, she will go to prison for 1 month.

HCMP 2927/2015 Kong Kam To

30. The respondent in this case Ms Kong Kam To was 52 and a housewife at the material time. Ms Kong lives on her daughter’s $4,000 contribution each month.

31. Ms Kong admitted her liability. She was found to be present between 11:47 am and 3:08 pm and refused to leave despite repeated warnings. This is however not the first time that Ms Kong has found herself in trouble with the police. Ms Kong has one assaulting police officer record back in 1996 when she was fined $500 in the Magistrate’s Court.

32. Having said that, there was no allegation of her using any violence on the material day. Ms Kong was also not involved in the organisation of the protest. Nor was she affiliated to any political party.

33. Given the limited role played by Ms Kong, she will be fined a sum of $10,000 and given an imprisonment term of 1 month but suspended for 12 months. Ms Kong will have 6 months to pay the sum. In default, she will go to prison for 1 month.

HCMP 2928/2015 Chan Ao Tien

34. The respondent in this case Mr Chan Ao Tien was 22 and a student at the material time. Currently he is a teacher, earning $16,000 a month.

35. Mr Chan admitted his liability. He was found to be present between 2:33 pm and 3:06 pm and refused to leave despite repeated warnings. Mr Chan was not affiliated to any political organisation. Nor did he resort to any violence on the material day. Mr Chan has a clear record and was not involved in the organisation of the protest.

36. Given the limited role played by Mr Chan, he will be fined $10,000 and given an imprisonment term of 1 month but suspended for 12 months. Mr Chan will have 3 months to pay the sum. In default, he will go to prison for 1 month.

HCMP 2929/2015 Chan Pak Tao

37. The respondent in this case Mr Chan Pak Tao was 25, a casual worker at the material time. Mr Chan was found guilty after trial. His acts and conducts on the material day had been described in my judgment handed down on 31 August 2018. Essentially Mr Chan was found to be present in the Area for an extended period of time and refused to leave despite repeated warnings. Mr Chan was not affiliated to any political organisation. Nor did he resort to any violence on the material day despite the gear that he was wearing. He has a clear record.

38. Given the limited role that played by Mr Chan, he will be fined $15,000 and given an imprisonment term of 6 weeks but suspended for 12 months. Mr Chan will have 3 months to pay the sum. In default, he will go to prison for 6 weeks.

HCMP 2930/2015 Chan Wing Wah

39. The respondent in this case Mr Chan Wing Wah was 45, a transportation worker at the material time. Due to ill health, Mr Chan currently lives on $3,660 social benefit from the Social Welfare Department.

40. Mr Chan admitted his liability. He was found to be present in the Area between 11:44 am and 3:09 pm and refused to leave despite repeated warnings. Mr Chan was not affiliated to any political organisation. Nor did he resort to any violence on the material day. He also has a clear record.

41. Given the limited role played by Mr Chan and his personal circumstances, he will be given an imprisonment term of 1 month but suspended for 12 months with no additional financial penalty.

HCMP 2931/2015 Lou Tit Man

42. The respondent in this case Mr Lou Tit Man was 69, unemployed at the material time. Mr Lou was born an orphan in Philippine. He came to Hong Kong at the age of 11. At the age of 19, Mr Lou became a street sleeper. Since then, he had been doing odd jobs till his 50’s. Currently he is receiving assistance from non-governmental organisations and the church. He was found guilty after trial.

43. His acts and conducts on the material day had been described in my judgment handed down on 31 August 2018. Essentially Mr Lou was seen to be present in the Area throughout the day. As mentioned in my judgment, his involvement was deep and extensive, beyond mere presence.

44. Mr Lou was seen standing on an elevated platform in the middle of Arygle Street and holding a yellow banner demanding universal suffrage when broadcast was being made to the crowd. He was also seen in rendering assistance to the seemingly organiser of the protest in the removal of the elevated platform. After its removal, Mr Lou was seen returning to the Area and continuing his defiance by standing at the forefront of the police check line till his arrest by the police. Despite his extensive involvement, it is however accepted that Mr Lou did not engage himself in any unlawful and violent act. Nor did he put up any resistance when being arrested by the police.

45. The role played by Mr Lou was similar to Mr Cheng Kam Mun. Unlike Mr Cheng Kam Mun, Mr Lou was found guilty after trial. The appropriate starting point for his sentence therefore is set at 4 1/2 month imprisonment. In view of his age and unblemished record in the past, his sentence can be adjusted slightly downwards to one of 4 months’ imprisonment. Other than that, I do not see any other mitigating factors. As such, Mr Lou is sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment for the contemptuous acts he committed on the material day.

HCMP 2932/2015 Leung Hon Lam

46. The respondent in this case Mr Leung Hon Lam was 17 and a student at the material time. He is now studying higher diploma in civil engineering at the Hong Kong Institute of Vocational Education.

47. Mr Leung admitted his liability. He was found to be present in the Area shortly before his arrest. Mr Leung has a clear record and was not affiliated to any political party. He was not involved in the organisation of the protest.

48. Given the limited role played by Mr Leung and his personal circumstances, he will be given an imprisonment term of 1 month but suspended for 12 months with no additional financial penalty.

Costs

49. The respondents do pay to the applicant the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings including all costs reserved on an indemnity basis, with certificate for 3 counsel. The respondents’ own costs, except Mr Lai Yu Sing, be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.

	(Andrew Chan)
	Judge of the Court of First Instance
	High Court

Mr Victor Dawes, SC, Mr Jin Pao, SC, Mr Derek Chan, SC and Mr Lavesh Kirpalani, instructed by Department of Justice, for the Applicant

Mr Hectar Pun, SC and Mr Deng Jundi Earl, instructed by Messrs JCC Cheung & Co, assigned by Director of Legal Aid, for the Respondents in HCMP 2917, 2920, 2921/2015 and 575/2018

Mr Lawrence Lok, SC and Ms Christine Yu, instructed by Messrs Ho, Tse, Wai & Partners, assigned by Director of Legal Aid, for the Respondents in HCMP 2918, 2925, 2928, 2929, 2932/2015

Ms Sabrina Leung, instructed by Messrs Sanny Kwong & Co, for the Respondent in HCMP 2927/2015

Ms Jacquelyn Ng, instructed by Messrs Sanny Kwong & Co, for the Respondent in HCMP 2930/2015

Mr Albert Wong, instructed by Messrs Kenneth Lam, assigned by Director of Legal Aid, for the Respondents in HCMP 2922, 2926/2015

Mr Wong, Yu‑yat, Anson, instructed by Messrs Kenneth Lam, for the Respondent in HCMP 2924/2015

Mr Wong, Yu‑yat, Anson, instructed by Messrs Bond Ng Solicitors, assigned by Director of Legal Aid, for the Respondent in HCMP 2931/2015

The Respondent in HCMP 2919/2015 appeared in person

HCMP 2916-2932/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NOS 2916-2932 OF 2015

_______________

	IN THE MATTER of applications by the Secretary for Justice for leave to apply for Order of Committal
	and
	IN THE MATTER of civil proceedings in HCA 2086/2014

_______________

BETWEEN
	SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE	Applicant
	and
	CHENG KAM MUN (鄭錦滿)	Respondent in HCMP 2916/2015
	SIEW YUN LONG (蕭雲龍)	Respondent in HCMP 2917/2015
	MAN FOR ON (文伙安)	Respondent in HCMP 2918/2015
	LAI YU SING (黎宇聲)	Respondent in HCMP 2919/2015
	LAW WAI YAN (羅慧茵)	Respondent in HCMP 2920/2015
	CHAN JEFFREY (陳子勳)	Respondent in HCMP 2921/2015
	CHAN WAI FUNG (陳瑋鋒)	Respondent in HCMP 2922/2015
	AU YUK KWAN (歐煜鈞)	Respondent in HCMP 2923/2015
	CHU SUI YING (朱瑞英)	Respondent in HCMP 2924/2015
	YUNG YIU SING (翁耀聲)	Respondent in HCMP 2925/2015
	WONG KA YEE (黃嘉義)	Respondent in HCMP 2926/2015
	KONG KAM TO (江金桃)	Respondent in HCMP 2927/2015
	CHAN AO TIEN (陳遨天)	Respondent in HCMP 2928/2015
	CHAN PAK TAO (陳柏陶)	Respondent in HCMP 2929/2015
	CHAN WING WAH (陳榮華)	Respondent in HCMP 2930/2015
	LOU TIT MAN (劉鐵民)	Respondent in HCMP 2931/2015
	LEUNG HON LAM (梁翰林)	Respondent in HCMP 2932/2015

_______________

(Heard together)

Before: Hon Chow J in Chambers (open to public)

Date of Hearing: 14 December 2016

Date of Decision: 16 December 2016

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

INTRODUCTION

1. The issue that I have to decide is whether to give a direction that all affidavits or affirmations filed on behalf of the Secretary for Justice shall stand as the evidence in chief of the deponents at the trial of these committal proceedings provided that the deponents do attend the trial to be cross-examined on their affidavits or affirmations by the respondents.

2. The above direction is sought by Mr Victor Dawes SC on behalf of the Secretary for Justice as the applicant in these proceedings and supported by Mr Gerard McCoy, SC on behalf of his clients in HCMP 2916, 2922, 2923 and 2926 of 2015, but objected to by (i) Mr Earl Deng on behalf of his clients in HCMP 2917, 2920 and 2921 of 2015, (ii) Mr Man Ho Ching (adopting the written submissions prepared by counsel, Ms Christine Yu) on behalf of his clients in HCMP 2928, 2929, 2931 and 2932 of 2015, and (iii) the respondents in HCMP 2918 and 2925 of 2015. The remaining respondents adopt, I understand, a neutral position on this matter.

DISCUSSION

3. The background facts to these proceedings are well known to the parties and I do not propose to set them out again in this decision.

4. On behalf of the Secretary for Justice, Mr Dawes submits that the direction sought should be given for the following reasons:-

(1)   The court has clear power to give such direction in view of the confirmation by the Court of Appeal in Secretary for Justice v Cheung Kai Yin [2014] 4 HKLRD 367, at paragraph  35, that the Rules of the High Court are generally applicable to proceedings for criminal contempt.
(2)   A similar direction was given in what are referred to as the “Taxi Cases” by consent, and there is no rational basis for not giving the same direction in the present group of cases.
(3)   The current estimated length of trial of 40 days is put forward on the basis that the affidavits or affirmations of the deponents will stand as their evidence in chief. If the deponents are required to give oral evidence in the traditional manner, it is estimated that an additional 15 to 20 days will be required for the trial.
(4)   There is no clear or intelligible reason why the deponents should be required to give evidence in chief in the traditional manner. None of the respondents has indicated which paragraphs of their affidavits or affirmations, or which areas of their evidence, are likely to be disputed. Neither has any of them been able to explain what tactical or other advantage he or she may obtain by requiring the deponents to give evidence in chief in the traditional manner.
(5)   Lastly, the mere fact that the credibility of a witness may be in issue does not necessarily mean that his or her witness statement should not be allowed to stand as his or her evidence in chief (see Bam Ganesh v Hussain Maroof, CACV 47/2007, 16 July 2008, at paragraph 18 per Le Pichon JA).

5. In my view, of the 5 reasons advanced by Mr Dawes, the important ones are the third and fourth reasons mentioned above. The fact that the court has power to give the direction sought is not a reason for the exercise of such power. Also, the fact that a similar direction was given in the Taxi Cases by consent cannot of itself be a good or sufficient reason for giving the same direction in the present set of cases. I accept, however, that the efficient administration of justice and the promotion of the underlying objectives of the Civil Justice Reform are good reasons for giving the direction sought by the Secretary for Justice. These considerations are, in my view, as relevant to proceedings for criminal contempt as they are to ordinary civil litigations.

6. I shall deal with a number of objections to the direction sought by the Secretary for Justice which have been raised by Mr Deng, Mr Man and some of the respondents acting in person.

7. First, it is said that the Secretary for Justice should, instead of seeking the direction, put forward agreed facts to the respondents for their consideration and use his prosecutorial discretion to identify witnesses who are necessary to prove his case so as to limit the number of witnesses required to give evidence at the trial. While I agree that it would be helpful for the Secretary for Justice to propose agreed facts with a view to them being agreed by the respondents and to limit the number of witnesses as much as possible so that the trial may be shortened, I do not consider these matters to be valid grounds to object to the direction now being sought by the Secretary for Justice. Irrespective of whether the affidavits or affirmations shall stand as the evidence in chief of the deponents, there is no obstacle to the agreement of undisputed facts or the limitation of witnesses.

8. Second, it is said that the respondents are not required to disclose or give any indication of their defence, because these are proceedings for criminal contempt with penal consequences. Hence, the Secretary of Justice’s fourth reason mentioned above has no force or validity. Granted that the respondents are entitled, as a matter of right, not to disclose their defence, it is a matter entirely for them to decide whether to exercise such right. If they choose to exercise the right of silence, the court can only make a decision on the basis of the materials and arguments now before the court, and determine whether, in the interest of justice, the affidavits or affirmations of the deponents filed on behalf of the Secretary for Justice should be allowed to stand as their evidence in chief.

9. Third, it is argued that the present cases and the facts in issue are identical to summary offences of a criminal nature, and safeguards in the criminal trial process to ensure the integrity and fairness of the system should be followed. I have been referred to a number of Australian authorities which explain the rationale behind the usual rule or practice of requiring witnesses to give their evidence orally in criminal trials. It is a fact, however, that the respondents are not currently being charged with any summary offences. It is also now clear that the present contempt proceedings are civil causes or matters (see Secretary for Justice v Cheung Kai Yin [2014] 4 HKLRD 367, at paragraph 35). As I see it, in considering whether to allow the affidavits or affirmations of the deponents to stand as evidence in chief, what is critical is not whether the present committal proceedings should be treated as being civil or criminal in nature, but whether the respondents will suffer any real prejudice as a result of the direction and whether the fairness of the trial will be compromised. It is, in my view, important that the direction will have no effect on the right of the respondents to fully cross-examine the deponents on their affidavits or affirmations. It has not been suggested or shown that any particular prejudice will be suffered by the respondents as a result of the direction, or that the trial process will be rendered unfair by permitting the deponents to adopt their affidavits or affirmations as their evidence in chief.

10. Lastly, it is argued that requiring the witnesses to give evidence in chief orally will promote the public interest of transparency of the proceedings. I am given to understand by Mr Dawes (which I consider to be a fair observation) that a large part of the case for the Secretary for Justice will be presented by video evidence and not the oral evidence of witnesses. It is clear to me that the trial of these applications will be fully reported in the media. I do not believe that the transparency of the proceedings will be compromised by giving the direction sought by the Secretary for Justice.

11. In my view, whether the direction sought by the Secretary for Justice should be given is ultimately a matter of case management. I consider that I ought to arrive at a result which would promote the efficient administration of justice while seeing that the respondents will not suffer any real prejudice in the conduct of their defence. I believe that a proper balance can be achieved by giving the direction sought by the Secretary for Justice but subject to an express proviso that the trial judge may direct the evidence in chief of any particular witness (in whole or in part) to be given orally.

Disposition

12. I give the following directions:-

(1)   all 17 applications now before me shall be heard together;
(2)   the Secretary for Justice shall have leave to fix dates for the trial of the 17 applications in consultation with counsel’s diary, with 40 days reserved;
(3)   there shall be a pre-trial review to be held on a date not earlier than 10 weeks and not later than 6 weeks prior to the commencement of the trial, with 1 hour reserved; and
(4)   subject to such direction as may be given by the trial judge that the evidence in chief of any particular witness (in whole or in part) shall be given orally, the affidavits or affirmations filed by the Secretary for Justice in these 17 applications shall stand as the evidence in chief of the deponents provided that they attend the trial to be cross-examined by or on behalf of the respondents.

13. I also make an order nisi that the costs of the application be in the cause, with certificate for 2 counsel where applicable.

14. The respondents’ own costs, in so far as they are legally aided, are to be taxed in accordance with legal aid regulations.

(Anderson Chow)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Mr Victor Dawes, SC and Mr Jin Pao, instructed by Department of Justice, for the applicant in HCMP 2916-2932 of 2015

HCMP 2916, 2922-2923, 2926 of 2015
Mr Gerard McCoy, SC and Mr Albert N B Wong, instructed by Kenneth Lam, assigned by Director of Legal Aid, for the respondents

HCMP 2917, 2920-2921 of 2015
Mr Earl Deng, instructed by JCC Cheung & Co, assigned by Director of Legal Aid, for the respondents

HCMP 2928-2929 and 2931-2932 of 2015
Mr Man Ho Ching, of Ho, Tse, Wai & Partners, assigned by Director of Legal Aid, for the respondents

HCMP 2924 of 2015
Mr Kenneth Lam, of Kenneth Lam, for the respondent

HCMP 2927, 2930 of 2015
Kong Kam To and Chan Wing Wah, the respondents, in person, absent

HCMP 2918 of 2015
Man For On, the respondent, in person, present

HCMP 2919 of 2015
Lai Yu Sing, the respondent, in person, present

HCMP 2925 of 2015
Yung Yiu Sing, the respondent, in person, present

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN WING WAH

Related cases with same parties

Files (2)