HKSAR v. Cheung Kin Chung

HCMA 591/2019

[2020] HKCFI 841

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 591 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM KCMP 643 OF 2019)

____________

____________

Before: Hon D’Almada Remedios J in Court

Date of Hearing: 11 May 2020

Date of Judgment: 11 May 2020

Date of Reasons for Judgment: 21 May 2020

________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

________________________

1.At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal I dismissed the appeal. I now hand down my reasons.

2.This is an appeal against the decision of Ms Ada Yim Acting Principal Magistrate made on 3 December 2019 refusing an application made by the appellant for the issue of a private summons for an alleged offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice against a security guard of Pioneer Management Limited on 19 October 2019. 

3.The appellant filed his notice of appeal dated 9 December 2019.  In the notice of appeal the appellant stated that the refusal by the magistrate was made as the magistrate was biased against him and she made no public pronouncement of her decision in a public hearing which has led to injustice by violating Article 10 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance resulting in an unfair hearing. 

4.The hearing was listed for hearing however the appellant failed to attend.  Mr Derek Wong SPP, counsel for the respondent informed the court that the appellant had recently failed to attend on numerous previous hearings where he had lodged appeals.  He submitted that the grounds of appeal are devoid of merit and asked that the appeal be dismissed. 

Discussion

5.The appellant was notified of the hearing date of the appeal by registered post.  I was satisfied that the appellant had been given notice of the hearing of his appeal.

6.In considering whether to dismiss the appeals in the absence of the appellant I have considered the merits in the grounds of appeal. 

7.I am satisfied that the magistrate had good cause to refuse the application made by the appellant because the appellant had failed to provide any details or information to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offence. 

8.There is no basis whatsoever to say that the magistrate was biased nor that the appellant received an unfair hearing. 

Conclusion

9.I find no basis to any of the complaints or grounds of appeal.  The appeal is wholly devoid of any merit.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Ms Derek Wong Chun Hin, SPP of the Department of Justice,  for the respondent

The appellant acting in person, being absent