- 41 A B - The Judge highlighted two specific areas as examples of the 72. purported conflicts or inconsistences: C (1) B The court in its civil jurisdiction is called upon to pronounce whether a party had committed criminal acts in breach of the D NSL when the same legal and factual questions would have to be determined in criminal proceedings against him. 38 E The Judge seemed to have been troubled by three matters. First, F A C D E F double jeopardy, which we have already dealt with above. G Second, standard of proof applied in contempt proceedings. But it is settled that the court will apply the criminal standard, H G H that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt, because of the penal I consequences: Kao Lee & Yip v Donald Koo (2009) 12 HKCFAR 830, at [30]; Cheung Kai Yin per Lam VP (as Lam J PJ then was) at [24] - [27]. K J Third, risks of inconsistent findings. However, it is well-established that subject to any statutory provision, a decision by a previous court, be it civil L I K L or criminal, has no relevance and is inadmissible in a M subsequent court adjudicating on another cause or matter on the same facts. The second court simply proceeds in light of N M N the evidence placed before it and reaches its own findings: O Hollington v F Hewthorn & Co Ltd [1943] KB 587, per Goddard LJ at pp 594-595; and Secretary of State for Trade P O P and Industry v Bairstow [2004] Ch 1, per Sir Andrew Morritt Q VC at [18]. And there is no such statutory exception in the R S (2) U V present case. R There are time limits for prosecution of offences under S sections 7(2) and (4) of the NAO and section 10 whereas there T 38 Q Decision, [68]. T U V