A JUDGE who quashed a corruption charge against a retired Lands Department surveyor yesterday refused to award the man his legal costs out of public funds. Judge Muttrie said he had no power to grant costs, estimated at more than $1 million, to Harry Hui Kin-hong, 50. The District Court judge caused controversy last week by ruling that the charge faced by Hui - of maintaining a standard of living above his official income - was invalid because it contradicted the Bill of Rights. Hui was re-arrested the next day pending an appeal by the Attorney-General. Defence barrister Gary Plowman QC submitted that legislation under Section 73A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, which states a judge can only award costs to a defendant who has been acquitted after trial, was inconsistent with Article 1 and Article 10 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance. Article 1 refers to prejudice and Article 10 to the right of defendants to be equal before the courts. He said it was unfair Hui should not be awarded his costs simply because he was discharged before trial rather than acquitted. But Judge Muttrie, who last week suggested the Bill of Rights Ordinance should be renamed the 'Can of Worms Ordinance', ruled against the defence. He said: 'There is no doubt that the power to award costs derives from statute.' The judge also rejected a defence application that Hui should receive compensation because his rights had been breached. Hui faces an allegation that an 'unexplained' sum of more than $1.5 million passed through his bank accounts between January 1, 1988, and December 31, 1990. He is charged under Section 10(1)(a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.