HKSAR v. Li Dandan

HCMA 373/2018

[2019] HKCFI 1493

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 373 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM KOWLOON CITY MAGISTRACY
CASE NO 42265 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Sham in Court

Date of Decision on Costs: 12 June 2019

____________________________________

D E C I S I O N   O N   C O S T S

____________________________________

1.The Appellant was convicted after trial of one count of dangerous driving in the Magistrates’ court; she appealed to this court against the conviction.

2.I upheld her appeal and set aside the conviction and the sentence. Judgment was handed down on 30 April 2019.

3.Now the Appellant applied through counsel for costs for this appeal with certificate for 2 counsel as well as for the trial in the court below with certificate for one counsel relying on the usual grounds.

4.The Respondent would not object to the application for costs of the appeal but argue that since the case involved no complex legal issues, no certificate for counsel should be granted.

5.Insofar as the costs for trial was concerned, the Respondent submitted that by driving in the way the Appellant did, she had brought suspicion on her, and thus costs should be denied.

6.The evidence the Prosecution relied on to say that the Appellant’s conduct bringing suspicion on herself came only from the testimony of the lorry driver and the independent witness, Mr Ng.

7.The evidence of the lorry driver was rejected by the trial magistrate and on appeal, I ruled, the evidence of Mr Ng was unreliable either. The account of events given by the Appellant, though also rejected by the lower court, could not in any way be seen as bringing suspicion on herself.

8.That being the case, the Appellant should be entitled to costs for the appeal as well as the costs for the trial below.

9.I therefore order that the appellant should have costs for the appeal and the trial with certificate for counsel as requested. Such costs are to be taxed if not agreed.

10.I hasten to add, however, since the trial was originally conducted in Chinese but the appeal was in English. The costs order above should not include any costs occasioned by translation.

Mr Eddie Sean, SADPP and Mr Pierre Lui, SPP of the Department of Justice, for the respondent

Mr Warren Louis Tang, instructed by Augustine C Y Tong & Co, for the appellant