HKSAR v. Gurung, Anish
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 183/2021 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 29 October 2021.
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.
|
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
________________________ 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.
Ms Grace Chan, SPP of the Department of Justice, for the respondent Mr William Allan, instructed by Mohnani & Associates, for the appellant |