HKSAR v. KWAN KA YIU

HCCP 105/2020

[2020] HKCFI 378

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 105 OF 2020

________________________

BETWEEN
	HKSAR	Respondent
and
	KWAN KA YIU	Applicant

________________________

Before:

Hon D’Almada Remedios J in Chambers

Date of Hearing:	2 March 2020
Date of Judgment:	2 March 2020

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1.  The applicant has applied before me for bail having been refused bail by the magistrate on 24 December 2019.

2.  I refused to grant bail, and gave reasons for my refusal.  It is unnecessary to repeat those reasons here as the purpose of this judgment is to reduce into writing my decision during the bail hearing on the installation of CCTV cameras at the applicant’s home to monitor his movement as a condition of bail.

3.  The applicant has submitted as one of the conditions of his bail that he is willing to install up to three CCTV cameras at his home so as to monitor his movements. 

4.  Mr Kwok, counsel acting on behalf of the applicant, has informed me that in three other cases, he has been successful before magistrates in having the installation of CCTV made one of the conditions of being granted bail.

5.  A condition that CCTV be installed is neither appropriate nor desirable for anyone granted bail at any level of the court jurisdiction.  I note here Mr Kwok himself acknowledged, at paragraph 22 of his written submissions, that live monitoring may be deemed “not desirable”.  I do not consider it desirable for anyone granted bail to be monitored by CCTV live television.

6.  Firstly, there are privacy concerns in respect of the defendant himself, his friends, family and visitors.

7.  Secondly, there are practical issues, quite apart from the setting up of the cameras, their location and their functioning.  I stress it is not the duty of the police to monitor a defendant around the clock, or even intermittently, through CCTV; nor can the police realistically be expected to examine hours of CCTV footage.  It is simply not practicable for them to do so.

8.  Thirdly, CCTV cameras serve little purpose for preventing a defendant from absconding, should he be minded to do so.

9.  There is a long‑established condition imposed by the courts of curfew.  Either a defendant abides by the condition of curfew or, if he has been found to have breached it, he will be brought before the court and dealt with.  It is difficult to see how CCTV cameras enhance the condition of curfew.

10.  I would strongly discourage any further applications of this novel and unprecedented condition, although it was no doubt put forward with a well‑intentioned motive.

11.  It is highly unlikely the High Court will in future approve of such a condition of bail.

	(S. D’Almada Remedios)
	Judge of the Court of First Instance
	High Court

 

Mr William Siu, SPP of the Department of Justice, for the respondent

Mr Douglas Kwok and Mr Law Ka-sing, instructed by Cheung & Co, for the applicant