Attorney General v. Lo Chak Man
Read the full judgment text of CACV 97/1994 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 30 September 1994.
1. I have before me an application brought under section 14(3)(e) of the Supreme Court Ordinance for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from an order for costs made by Mortimer JA on the 28 July 1994.
|
CACV000097/1994 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1994, No. 97 _______________
_______________ Coram: Hon Litton, J.A. in Court Date of hearing: 30 September 1994 Date of judgment: 30 September 1994 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ Litton, J.A.: 1. I have before me an application brought under section 14(3)(e) of the Supreme Court Ordinance for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from an order for costs made by Mortimer JA on the 28 July 1994. 2. When the matter first came before me ex-parte on 30 August I ordered that the application be renewed inter-partes in court so that the Crown could be heard. 3. The ultimate question which the applicant LO Chak-man desires to be debated in the Court of Appeal is whether the previous application made by the Crown for a letter of request to be issued was a proceeding of a civil nature or criminal: it was in relation to this issue that LO Chak-man appealed in CA 97/94, leading to the Attorney-General's motion to strike out the appeal: it was on this motion that Mortimer JA made his costs order against LO Chak- man on 28 July. In my view the application for a letter of request was plainly a criminal proceeding. It was an interlocutory step in the criminal process: the prosecution of the applicant LO Chak-man for an offence contrary to s25(1)(a) of the Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) Ordinance, Cap 405. The application for the letter of request was part of the process whereby he could be brought to court to answer the criminal charge against him. As such, there can be no interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeal. 4. I have been much assisted by the skeleton argument prepared by Mr Michael Lunn QC, setting out the position of law. Mr Louis Chan, as I understand him, concedes that unless there is a substantive question of law for the Court of Appeal's determination, there can be no viable appeal against Mortimer JA's costs order. In my judgment there is no question of law for the determination of the Court of Appeal which could form the foundation for impeaching Mortimer J's order for costs. The application is therefore dismissed, with costs.
Representation: Mr Louis Chan (M/S Lo, Wong & Tsui) for Respondent/Appellant Mr Michael Lunn, QC & Mrs Judith Maguire (Attorney General's Chambers) for the Applicant/Respondent |