HKSAR v. Wong Wai Yip
Read the full judgment text of CACC 159/2001 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 26 February 2003.
1. This is an application which is brought under the provisions of s. 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, for a certificate that points of law of great and general importance were involved in the judgment given by this court on 24 January 2002.
Cited by 2 cases
|
CACC000159A/2001 CACC 159/2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 159 OF 2001 (ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 33 OF 2001) ____________
____________ Coram: Hon Stuart-Moore VP and Woo, JA Date of Hearing: 26 February 2003 Date of Judgment: 26 February 2003 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ Stuart-Moore VP (giving the judgment of the Court): 1.This is an application which is brought under the provisions of s. 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, for a certificate that points of law of great and general importance were involved in the judgment given by this court on 24 January 2002. 2.There are two questions which are related to the exercise of the court's powers to order loss of time under s. 83W of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance. 3.Originally, the Applicant was given legal aid but the application was deliberately fixed for a date to follow HKSAR v Chau Ching Kay [2003] 1 HKLRD 99 in which, effectively, the same questions were raised as in the present matter. In the light of the decision in Chau Ching Kay, the Director of Legal Aid applied for the discharge of the legal aid certificate. The questions have been resolved by the Court of Final Appeal in a way which leaves the Applicant with no prospect of success in that court. 4.A short while ago, the Applicant wrote to this court indicating that he might, in the future, have grounds of appeal which he would wish to present to the Court of Final Appeal. His decision to abandon the proceedings was therefore conditional upon that factor. Today, he has indicated that he does not wish to pursue the matter. However, he has been given ample time in which formally to abandon these proceedings, using the proper form, and he has failed to do so. 5.All we need to indicate now is that we refuse to certify.
Representation: Ms Mary Sin, SADPP, of Department of Justice, for the Respondent Applicant in person |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACC 159/2001