Li Tak Ming v. Secretary for Justice

CACV000078A/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL

1998, No. 78
(Civil)

_________________

________________

Coram: Mortimer, V.-P., Godfrey and Leong JJ.A. in Court

Date of Judgment: 7 October 1998

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Mortimer, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court) :

1. The applicant, Li Tak-ming, in this matter applies for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against a decision of this Court on 10 June 1998 dismissing his appeal against Sears J's refusal to grant leave.

2. The application before Sears J was for leave to apply for judicial review of decisions of the Commissioner of Police refusing the applicant's renewal of a firearms licence under the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance (Cap. 238). The factual background is set out in our decisions of 10 June 1998 and it is not necessary to repeat that background in our decision today.

3. The applicant applies for leave under s.22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. The relevant parts of which read:

"(1) An appeal shall lie to the Court in any civil cause or matter -

...

(b) at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court, from any other judgment of the Court of Appeal whether final or interlocutory, if. in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court, as the case may be, the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court for decision."

4. We turn to the merits. The applicant submits that there are in this case a number of points of law of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision. He has helpfully set out those points in his written application. They can perhaps be summarised as follows:

(a) Whether there is a prescribed form under s.32 of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance;

(b) Whether the form or forms which he was asked to complete were either of them a prescribed form;

(c) Whether the power to prescribe a form had been delegated to the Commissioner of Police;

(d) Whether the Commissioner of Police had in fact renewed his licence and whether in those circumstances he had any power to revoke it;

(e) Whether the Commissioner of Police has power under the legislation to renew a firearms licence after the expiry date, in this case, 1 May 1997;

(f) Whether the handing in of a licence for renewal in any event fulfils the necessary requirements of s.32 of the Ordinance;

(g) Whether the Commissioner of Police had power under the legislation to require the provision of information he requested;

(h) When the legislation and (at the time of this matter) the Governor-in-Council had defined the terms for renewal, whether the Commissioner of Police could pursue a policy under which he could grant or refuse a licence, and

(i) Whether in the absence of any express power of the Commissioner of Police to ask them the Commissioner of Police could refuse to grant a licence if the applicant refused to answer reasonable questions.

5. Now, having considered each of these matters we are of the view that none of them amounts to a question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision. That is bearing in mind what we said in our decision that in some respects the drafting of the legislation leaves a good deal to be desired. Finally, we have considered whether there is any basis for granting leave under the "or otherwise" provision, and on this matter we are against the applicant as well.

6. In those circumstances this application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused.

Representation:

Applicant in person