Secretary for Justice v. Cheng Ka-yee and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 466/2017 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 6 September 2018.
1. By a judgment handed down on 6 August 2018, I dismissed the applicant’s appeal by way of Case Stated under section 105 of the Magistrates Ordinance, Cap 227, in respect of the acquittals of the four respondents.
Cites 1 case
|
HCMA 466/2017 [2018] HKCFI 2249 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 466 OF 2017 (ON APPEAL FROM KCCC NO 2932 OF 2015) ______________
______________
______________
______________ D E C I S I O N ______________ 1.By a judgment handed down on 6 August 2018, I dismissed the applicant’s appeal by way of Case Stated under section 105 of the Magistrates Ordinance, Cap 227, in respect of the acquittals of the four respondents. 2.The applicant now applies for a certificate, under section 32 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, that a point of law of great and general importance is involved in my judgment, to enable the applicant to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 3.The revised question that the applicant asks me to certify is this: “Is the actus reus of the offence under section 161(1)(c) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200 restricted to the unauthorised extraction and use of information from a computer?” 4.All the respondents oppose the application on grounds that the result of the appeal is academic insofar as they are concerned, because the acquittals will unlikely be affected and that the applicant’s contention is not reasonably arguable. 5.While the result of this application probably might not affect theacquittals of the respondents, I agree with the applicant that a determinationas to the meaning of the actus reus (obtaining access to a computer) will not only affect the offence created under section 161(1)(c), but also other offences under section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance. It would be in the interests of the public that there should be a final resolution of the proper construction of the controversial offences under section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance. 6.I am satisfied that the question that I am asked to certify is of great and general importance and reasonably arguable. I therefore allow the application and grant the certificate sought.
Mr David Leung SC, DPP, Mr Lee Kan-yung, Robert, SADPP and Miss Hui Hei-ching Kasmine, SPP (Ag), of the Department of Justice, for the applicant Mr David Boyton, instructed by T K Tsui & Co, for the 1st and 4th respondents Mr Duncan Percy, instructed by Kenneth W Leung & Co, for the 2nd respondent Mr James Tze, instructed by Raymond Luk & Co, for the 3rd respondent |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCMA 466/2017