梁銳成 v. 香港區域法院

HCAL 418/2018

[2018] HKCFI 597

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 418 OF 2018

____________

____________

Before: Hon Chow J in Chambers

Date of Decision: 20 March 2018

Date of Handing Down Decision: 20 March 2018

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

1.This is an application for leave to apply for judicial review seeking “clarification” of the meaning of a statement made by Deputy District Court Judge Leung in his written decision dated 15 December 2017 (“the December Decision”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal against the Deputy Judge’s decision dated 20 April 2017 (“the April Decision”) giving judgment against the Applicant in a libel action (“the Libel Action”) in DCCJ 3435/2012 and ordering the Applicant to pay general damages of HK$100,000 and aggravated damages of HK$80,000 to the Plaintiff in that action. The statement in question (underlined below) is contained in paragraph 8 of the December Decision, as follows:-

“關於第一至第五項的上訴理由，主要是被告人挑戰本席就事實的裁斷。本席在作出判案書時，以經充分考慮本案當時呈上的所有證據及供詞，包括證人作供時的神情舉止。一般情況下，上訴庭較少推翻下級法院就事實的裁斷，本席不同意在作出判案書時，在評核雙方證供時候，有被告人在這申請上訴許可聆訊所指的明顯錯誤，例如忽略重要證據，誤解證據，或者作出缺乏證據支持的事實裁定。所以被告人就上述第一至第五的上訴理由，並無合理勝訴機會，故此不批予以上訴許可”.

2.The Libel Action, in which the Applicant was the Defendant, arose out of a letter and certain flyers published or distributed by the Applicant in June and September 2012 respectively, which Leung Chi Wang (the Plaintiff in the Libel Action) considered to be defamatory of him.  The basic facts of that case are fully set out in the April Decision and shall not be repeated here.  After a contested trial, the Deputy Judge found in favour of the Plaintiff and ordered the Defendant to pay the aforesaid damages to the Plaintiff.  The Defendant was not satisfied with the Deputy Judge’s decision and sought leave to appeal.

3.As can be seen from the December Decision, the Applicant advanced a total of 8 proposed grounds of appeal.  The Deputy Judge dismissed the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal.  Paragraph 8 of the December Decision related to the 1^st to 5^th proposed grounds of appeal.  The Deputy Judge considered that those grounds sought to challenge findings of fact made by him.  It was in that context that the Deputy Judge stated that generally speaking, the Court of Appeal would seldom overturn findings of fact made by a trial judge.

4.If the Applicant is not satisfied with the Deputy Judge’s December Decision refusing to grant him leave to appeal, he may make a further application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.  It is an improper use of the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction in judicial review to seek to challenge a determination of the District Court refusing leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.  Further, judicial review only lies against a decision or order made by a person or body who is amenable to judicial review, but not against a sentence or statement, or the meaning or implications of a sentence or statement, in a judgment given by a judge sitting in the District Court.

5.For the above reasons, the proposed application for judicial review is not reasonably arguable.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review is therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs.

The Applicant acting in person