HKSAR v. Chung Kin Ping and Others

Read the full judgment text of HCMA 296/2015 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 30 March 2017.

1. Upon reading carefully the originals of the three documents, namely, “Hong Kong Island Operational Briefing”, “Wan Chai District Operational Briefing” and “Post-operation Review”, which the police prepared specifically for dealing with the 1 July march in 2013 (including the parts of the original documents which the prosecution had succeeded in their application before a magistrate to withhold and exclude from disclosure to the defence on the ground that they were subject to “public interest

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCMA 296/2015[2018] 1 HKLRD 966
Court
High Court CFI
Date30 Mar 2017
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

[English Translation – 英譯本]

HCMA 296/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 296 OF 2015

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC NO 1433 OF 2014)

________________

BETWEEN    
  HKSAR Respondent
and
  CHUNG KIN PING 1 st Appellant
  (鍾健平)  
  CHAN TSZ CHUN DANNY 2 nd Appellant
  (陳梓進)  
  WONG CHUN KWOK 3 rd Appellant
  (黃俊珏)  

________________

Coram: Hon Barnes J in Court
Date of Hearing: 27 March 2017
Date of Ruling: 30 March 2017

RULING

1.Upon reading carefully the originals of the three documents, namely, “Hong Kong Island Operational Briefing”, “Wan Chai District Operational Briefing” and “Post-operation Review”, which the police prepared specifically for dealing with the 1 July march in 2013 (including the parts of the original documents which the prosecution had succeeded in their application before a magistrate to withhold and exclude from disclosure to the defence on the ground that they were subject to “public interest immunity”), the “Justification” put forward to the magistrate by the prosecution, and the brief written explanation submitted to the court by the respondent, and after considering the submissions of each of the appellants and the respondent, I make the following ruling and orders:

(1) I refuse the appellants’ applications for disclosure of the originals of the three documents above (including the parts excluded from disclosure on the ground that they were subject to “public interest immunity”) to the defence solicitors and counsel upon their professional undertaking;

(2)  It is not necessary for me to appoint a “special advocate” to assist the court to deal with the matter concerned, and this approach would not cause any unfairness to the appellants;

(3) The present appeal will be heard again on 25 April:

(i) At 9:30 am first in chambers (not open to public), for the prosecution to make submissions on the matter of “public interest immunity”;

(ii) The appeal to be heard at 11 am in court.

2.I have also reserved 26 and 27 April to ensure the hearing of the appeal will complete within time.

  (Judianna Barnes)
   Judge of the Court of First Instance

The 1st Appellant, Chung Kin Ping, was not represented and appeared in person

Douglas Kwok, instructed by Tang Paul C K and Chiu, assigned by Director of Legal Aid, for the 2nd Appellant

Randy Shek, instructed by Ho Tse Wai & Partners, assigned by Director of Legal Aid, for the 3rd Appellant

Anna Lai SC, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions and Raymond Cheng, Acting Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, of the Department of Justice, for the HKSAR, the Respondent

Translated by the Judgment Translation Unit of the Judiciary and vetted by Mr. P. Y. Lo, Barrister-at-law.