BabelCite

Ewan Quayle Launder v. HKSAR

Read the full judgment text of on BabelCite. was delivered on 21 March 2002.

1. On 9 January 2002, the appellant (whose conviction the Court had quashed on 13 December 2001) took out a notice of motion applying for his costs here and below. The parties were notified that the application would be dealt with on written submissions, and they were directed to file such submissions. They have done so. The Court has considered their written submissions, and now hands down its determination on costs.

Case No.
Court
Date21 Mar 2002
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

FACC000003A/2001

FACC No. 3 of 2001

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

FINAL APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2001 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPEAL FROM CACC NO. 147 OF 2000)

_____________________

Between:
EWAN QUAYLE LAUNDER

Appellant
AND
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

Respondent

_____________________

Court: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Litton NPJ and
Sir Anthony Mason NPJ

Date of Determination: 21 March 2002

__________________________

DETERMINATION ON COSTS

__________________________

Chief Justice Li:

1.On 9 January 2002, the appellant (whose conviction the Court had quashed on 13 December 2001) took out a notice of motion applying for his costs here and below. The parties were notified that the application would be dealt with on written submissions, and they were directed to file such submissions. They have done so. The Court has considered their written submissions, and now hands down its determination on costs.

2.Clearly the appellant drew suspicion upon himself. Even for that reason alone, costs up to and including his second trial should not be awarded to him.

3.On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the appellant took many points. None of them were good apart from the one on which he ultimately succeeded in his Court. That point was based on a misdirection by the judge to the jury. Although fatal as uncorrected, it could have been put right if either the prosecution or the defence had noticed it. Unfortunately neither did.

4.This is not an occasion for laying down the principles on which this Court should award or withhold costs in criminal cases. Suffice it to say that, in all the circumstances of this case, no award of costs is appropriate.

5.There will be no order as to costs.

(Andrew Li) (Kemal Bokhary) (Patrick Chan)
Chief Justice Permanent Judge Permanent Judge

(Henry Litton) (Sir Anthony Mason)
Non-Permanent Judge Non-Permanent Judge

Representation:

Written submissions received from:

Mr Gerard McCoy SC, Mr Alexander King, Mr Edwin Choy (instructed by Haldanes) for the appellant; and

Mr Blanchflower SC, Mr B. Ryan and Mr G. Shiu (of the Department of Justice) for the respondent

Ewan Quayle Launder v. HKSAR [] | BabelCite