header-logo header-logo

06 December 2024 / Dr Ping-fat Sze
Issue: 8097 / Categories: Features , Profession , International , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Prosecutorial decisions in Hong Kong: Pt 2

200298
Dr Ping-fat Sze examines the reviewability of prosecutorial decisions, & the effect on access to justice
  • Examines the relevant case law, maintaining that undue weight has been given to a 2003 decision in the Fijian Supreme Court.

In England and Wales, it is settled that, apart from fraud or corruption, a prosecutorial decision is reviewable on the ground that the relevant law was misunderstood or misapplied, or relevant matters were not considered properly, or irrelevant matters were taken into consideration, or the decision was made contrary to the evidence or in disregard of the prosecution policy (see, for example, the ‘Judicial Review of CPS Prosecuting Decisions (Appeals)’, issued by the Crown Prosecution Service).

Despite repeated claims that the English law and practice should be followed in this area, surprisingly, the courts in Hong Kong are indisposed to review prosecutorial decisions unless they were made dishonestly, in bad faith or according to political instruction (see ‘Prosecutorial decisions in Hong Kong: getting it wrong?NLJ,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
back-to-top-scroll