1. The Appellant was on remand at Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre when he was involved in a fight with other inmates. In disciplinary proceedings under the Prison Rules, the Appellant pleaded guilty to fighting in prison and was punished with forfeiture of remission for 5 days, separate confinement for 21 days, and forfeiture of privileges for 21 days. After the Appellant was released, he was re-arrested and charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. 2. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the assault charge and applied to stay the prosecution for abuse of process on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings were based on the same or substantially the same facts so that he had already been punished for the incident, and being tried again would give rise to double jeopardy. The Magistrate disagreed, ruling that the disciplinary hearing was different in nature from the criminal proceedings and had not been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, even though both sets of proceedings arose from the same facts. The rule against double jeopardy therefore did not apply. On appeal, the Court of First Instance agreed with the Magistrate. 3. Before this Court the Appellant argued that the common law rule against double jeopardy applied to the disciplinary proceedings since the requirement that the initial proceedings be those of a court of competent jurisdiction had been abolished by an English Court of Appeal decision. Therefore, it would be an abuse of process to try him again. Secondly, he argued that Section 8, Article 11(6), of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383) (“BOR”) barred the subsequent prosecution since, by virtue of the disciplinary proceedings, the Appellant had been finally convicted of an offence properly classified as “criminal” according to the law and penal procedure of Hong Kong. 4. This Court rejected the first argument and confirmed that the discretion at common law to stay criminal proceedings as an abuse of process only arises where a defendant faces a second trial arising from the same or substantially the same set of facts as at an earlier trial before a court of competent jurisdiction. 5. The Acting Superintendent does not qualify as a court of competent jurisdiction. The prison disciplinary proceedings are significantly different from criminal proceedings, which apply to the public at large. Such disciplinary proceedings apply only to a limited class of persons and are only concerned with maintaining order and discipline within the prison. 6. This Court also rejected the second argument. The protection against double jeopardy provided by BOR 11(6) substantively blocks further proceedings and is different from procedural fair hearing guarantees provided by other provisions of BOR Art 11. The rules which have been developed for making the procedural fair hearing guarantees applicable by broadening the concept of “criminal” are not appropriate for activating protection against double jeopardy under BOR 11(6) because its substantive effect is quite different. The Court therefore held that BOR 11(6) is limited to cases where the initial proceedings are criminal proceedings strictly so called before a court exercising criminal jurisdiction. Therefore, BOR 11(6) was inapplicable to the prison disciplinary proceedings in the present case. Disposition 7. Accordingly, the Court unanimously dismissed the appeal.