Read the full judgment text of CACV 104/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 17 September 2018 before Lam VP, Chu and Poon JJA.
Civil procedure – judicial review – abuse of process – second application for judicial review after previous refusal – standing – non-party seeking to compel witness evidence in criminal proceedings – legitimate expectation – procedural impropriety – appeal dismissed – The applicant, a non-party to criminal proceedings KCCC 2035/2017, sought judicial review to compel the magistrate, prosecution, or defence to call her as a witness. She had previously applied for leave in HCAL 1140/2017, which was refused, and the appeal struck out. Her second application (HCAL 419/2018) was refused by Chow J. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that bringing a second application on the same subject matter was an abuse of process. Further, the applicant had no standing to interfere with the criminal trial; the question of evidence is for the trial court, not judicial review, except in exceptional circumstances. Arguments based on legitimate expectation and procedural impropriety were wholly misconceived. Appeal dismissed.
Legal issues: Abuse of process in second judicial review application · Standing to interfere with criminal trial evidence · Legitimate expectation and procedural impropriety claims
Outcome: Appeal dismissed.
Cited by 6 cases · Cites 4 cases