This case note examines the latest development on the police’s power to search the digital contents of an arrested person’s mobile phone without a warrant in Sham Wing Kan v Commissioner of Police [2020] HKCA 186; [2020] 2 HKLRD 529. Two issues will be discussed. First, the Court of Appeal’s approach to American and Canadian law in this area will be critically analysed. Second, the safeguards proposed by the Court for a police officer’s warrantless search of the digital contents on a mobile phone will be evaluated. It argues that the Court’s erroneous interpretation of foreign law on the police’s power to search the digital contents on a mobile phone has contributed to the inadequacy of the safeguards proposed by the Court vis-à-vis an arrestee’s privacy rights under the Hong Kong Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.
Xiamen Xinjingdi Group Co Ltd v Eton Properties Limited is a recent Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal judgment which concerns a very complex commercial dispute and covers multiple areas of law. In this article, we will focus on Lord Sumption NPJ’s analysis of the trust claims and evaluate the judgment as well as its potential implications. We argue that while this judgment has helpfully clarified the law in relation to trust claims with a cross-border context, the legal reasoning and conclusions reached therein cannot be said to be free of errors.
This article examines comparatively approaches in Hong Kong and English law on powers created by the use of subordinate legislations to combat the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspectives of legislative drafting and statutory interpretation. These powers, being wide and flexible in nature, pose a tension between two competing concerns. On the one hand, they enable law enforcement officers to be able to deal with the unique challenges posed by a public health crisis. On the other hand, they pose the potential to restrict fundamental human rights disproportionately. This article will proceed in three parts. First, the article will analyse the responsibilities of drafters in drafting subordinate legislations and the techniques therein; the discussion will be contextualized within a need for urgent public health responses to combat the pandemic. Second, the powers conferred upon law enforcement officers and restrictions on individual liberty under Hong Kong law and English law will be analysed. Third, approaches to interpreting the relevant legislations under the two jurisdictions will be examined. It will be argued that despite the need to confer wide and flexible powers to the executive to combat the pandemic, specificity of language and precision in articulating these powers remain of cardinal and overarching importance.
Joe Zhixiong Zhou v SAIF Partners II L.P. is a recent judgment of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal which concerns a dispute between a private equity fund and its former partner. This judgment, written by Lord Hoffmann NPJ and substantially shorter than those handed down by the lower courts, has several important implications. In this article, we will first unpack and explain the judgment and supplement the discussions with the relevant legal principles and concepts. We will then discuss the judgment’s implications to cases involving a complex web of parties and/or fiduciaries.
In Secretary for Justice v Tong Wai Hung [2021] HKCA 404, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal affirmed that the doctrine of joint enterprise, as a matter of statutory construction, is applicable onwards to the offences of unlawful assembly and riot under the Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245), and physical presence at the crime scene is not a pre-requisite to establish liability. The Court argued that such an interpretation strikes a balance between public order concerns and the need to avoid the risk of over-charging. This note contends that the Court of Appeal’s decision will risk exposing numerous citizens, who can hardly be said to share culpability comparable to that of the actual and principal perpetrators of unlawful and riotous assemblies, to prosecution and conviction on questionable legal and evidential basis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.