Yau Kwong Man and Another v. Secretary for Security
Read the full judgment text of CACV 377/2002 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 2 July 2003.
1 We have decided that the appropriate course is to dismiss the appeal. The appeal is, as counsel on both sides now acknowledge, academic. The effect of the declaration granted by Hartmann J is to negate the minimum terms set in the case of these applicants. That being so, there arises no practical point in the remaining challenges. It matters not that there may exist another reason in law that the power of the Chief Executive to set minimum terms was unconstitutional. Nor does the constitutiona
Cited by 3 cases
|
CACV000377/2002 CACV 377/2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 377 OF 2002 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NOS. 1595 OF 2001 AND 1596 OF 2001) ____________________________________
_______________________________ Coram: Hon Stock JA, Le Pichon JA and Ma JA in Court Date of Hearing: 2 July 2003 Date of Judgment: 2 July 2003 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ Hon Stock JA (giving the judgment of the Court): 1We have decided that the appropriate course is to dismiss the appeal. The appeal is, as counsel on both sides now acknowledge, academic. The effect of the declaration granted by Hartmann J is to negate the minimum terms set in the case of these applicants. That being so, there arises no practical point in the remaining challenges. It matters not that there may exist another reason in law that the power of the Chief Executive to set minimum terms was unconstitutional. Nor does the constitutionality of section 12(2) of the Long-term Prison Sentences Review Ordinance survive as a live issue in this case because, by reason of the judgment below, the minimum terms to which that section refers do not, in the cases of these applicants, survive. Nor is it for this Court to address the legality of such review procedure as may now obtain; or to set fresh minimum terms. 2Mr Dykes seeks leave to withdraw the appeal. We do not in the event think that that is an appropriate course. The fact is that the appeal is misconceived for the reasons which we have provided, and we see no circumstances in reality in which it would be revived. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. It should, however, be made clear that we have heard no argument as to the merits of the grounds which were advanced. 3There will be no order as to costs. The respondent gave no intimation until delivery of the skeleton argument that the point, that the appeal was academic, was to be taken; and even then the respondent did so in relation to one of the grounds only. Indeed, the Respondent's Notice which was issued served to convey the impression that the issues raised were live issues.
Representation: Mr Philip Dykes SC, leading Mr Paul Harris and Mr Ivan Wong, instructed by Messrs Fung and Fung for the Applicants Mr Michael Blanchflower SC instructed by the Department of Justice for the Respondent |
Other judgments that cite this case