HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal2021

HKSAR v. GURUNG, ANISH

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
[2021] HKCFI 3208-EN-2021-10-29

HKSAR v. GURUNG, ANISH

HTML content

HCMA 183/2021

[2021] HKCFI 3208

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 183 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM KCCC 2455 OF 2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

 HKSARRespondent
 and 
 GURUNG, AnishAppellant

________________________

Before:  Hon Campbell-Moffat J in Court

Date of Written Submissions by the Appellant:  29 May 2021

Date of Written Submissions in reply by the Respondent:  15 June 2021

Date of Judgment:  29 October 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________


1.  The appellant was acquitted after trial of possession of a dangerous drug contrary to s8(1)(a)  and (2)  of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. At that time, the learned magistrate refused an application for costs. The appellant by his notice of appeal against an order of a judge dated 12 April 2021, seeks to appeal that refusal.

2.  The prosecution have reviewed the refusal to make an order as to costs in favour of the acquitted appellant and have submitted by way of a letter dated 15 June 2021, that they do not wish to oppose this application.  Unfortunately, it has only come to the attention of this Court shortly before the matter has been listed for hearing.

3.  In the light of the stance taken by the respondent in this appeal, the court will deal with the matter on paper and will allow the appeal.  The refusal of the magistrate to award costs is hereby revoked.  Costs in the preparation of this appeal and the hearing below be to the appellant to be taxed if not agreed.

 (A P Campbell-Moffat)
 Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Ms Grace Chan, SPP of the Department of Justice, for the respondent

Mr William Allan, instructed by Mohnani & Associates, for the appellant