HKSAR v. Ajim Miah

Read the full judgment text of HCMA 300/2022 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 3 June 2024.

1. It is the appellant’s application for a certificate to the Court of Final Appeal in relation to my dismissal of his appeal against conviction. As it has been properly pointed out by Mr Cheng on behalf of the Department of Justice, this application is out of time and also that there is no point of law involved.

Cited by 1 case

Case No.HCMA 300/2022[2024] HKCFI 1797
Court
High Court CFI
Date03 Jun 2024
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCMA 300/2022

[2024] HKCFI 1797

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 300 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM STCC 3465 OF 2021)

________________________

  IN THE MATTER of an application for a certificate pursuant to section 32(2)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484
  and
  IN THE MATTER of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 October 2023 in Magistracy Appeal No 300 of 2022

________________________

BETWEEN

  HKSAR Respondent
  and  
  AJIM MIAH Appellant

________________________

Before:  Hon Toh J in Court
Date of Hearing:  3 June 2024
Date of Judgment:  3 June 2024

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________


1.It is the appellant’s application for a certificate to the Court of Final Appeal in relation to my dismissal of his appeal against conviction. As it has been properly pointed out by Mr Cheng on behalf of the Department of Justice, this application is out of time and also that there is no point of law involved.

2.The applicant in his written submissions claimed that he had applied for legal aid on 20 October 2023.  In fact, he only applied for legal aid for the appeal on 9 April 2024 and the application for legal aid was refused.

3.Furthermore, from the matters set out by the applicant in his written grounds and what he has informed the court this morning, it is clear that he relies mainly on the findings of facts which he asserts the learned Magistrate has misconstrued.  He mentions facial identification and “terrible directions”.  Those are matters which have been thoroughly explored and the conviction was not just based on facial recognition.

4.I do not see any point of law of great and general importance for me to give a certificate for appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  If the Appellant considers that it is unjust, he can directly go to the Court of Final Appeal to seek leave to appeal. 

5.So the application is refused.

(Esther Toh)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Mr Herbert Cheng, PP of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent

The Appellant appeared in person   

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under HCMA 300/2022