HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Miscellaneous Proceedings (Criminal)2022

HKSAR v. CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN) (陳克恩)

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
[2023] HKCFA 2-EN-2023-01-18

HKSAR v. CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN) (陳克恩)

HTML content

FAMC Nos. 31 and 32 of 2022

[2023] HKCFA 2

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NOS. 31 and 32 OF 2022 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM CACC NO. 185 OF 2021)

_______________________

BETWEEN

 HKSARRespondent
 and 
 CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN) (陳克恩) (D1)Applicant
  in FAMC 31/2022
 HAO MAY (formerly known asApplicant
 WANG MAY YAN) (alias MAY WANG) (D2)in FAMC 32/2022

_______________________

Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Fok PJ and Mr Justice Lam PJ
Date of Hearing and Determination: 18 January 2023

_________________________

DETERMINATION

_________________________

Mr Justice Fok PJ:

1.  We are satisfied that the two questions of law set out in the applicants’ Applications for Leave to Appeal are involved in the decision from which leave to appeal is sought and that they are of the requisite importance and reasonably arguable. We therefore grant leave to appeal in respect of those questions, namely:

“Question 1

What on the true construction of section 4 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance (Cap.492), is the meaning of ‘where a defendant is not tried for an offence for which he has been indicted or committed for trial’?

Question 2

Whether the power to award costs under the said section 4 covers a situation where a defendant’s trial is aborted by reason of the discharge of the jury?”

2.  Further, we grant leave to appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal on the ground that it is reasonably arguable that, in finding that the judge had no jurisdiction to grant defence costs to a defendant under section 4 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance (Cap.492), substantial and grave injustice has been done to the applicants.

3.  The appeal will be listed for hearing on 8 May 2023.

(R A V Ribeiro)
Permanent Judge
(Joseph Fok)
Permanent Judge
(M H Lam)
Permanent Judge

  

Mr Tim Owen KC and Mr Benson Tsoi, instructed by Boase, Cohen & Collins, for the 1st Defendant/Applicant in FAMC 31/2022

Mr Ian Winter KC and Ms Betty Chiu, instructed by Haldanes, for the 2nd Defendant/Applicant in FAMC 32/2022

Ms Vinci Lam SC, DDPP and Ms Joycelyn Ng, SPP, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent