Read the full judgment text of FAMC 000030/1999 on BabelCite. This FAMC judgment was delivered on 31 January 2000 before Li CJ, Ching PJ, Bokhary PJ.
Criminal law – leave to appeal – Court of Final Appeal – s.32(2) Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 – 'point of law of great and general importance' limb – 'substantial and grave injustice' limb – identification evidence – whether questions framed for the Court of Final Appeal raise a point of law or amount to a substantial and grave injustice. The applicant was convicted by a jury on four counts arising from a shooting on the evening of 18 November 1997 in the lift lobby of a domestic block, including three counts of possession of arms and ammunition without a licence and one count of shooting with intent. The prosecution's case was that the applicant, infatuated with a woman whose romantic interest lay with the victim, accosted, chased, shot and wounded the victim. The main evidence against the applicant was the victim's identification of him, with an element of 'recognition' based on a prior introduction about two months before, supplemented by CCTV still photographs in which the victim saw a man 80% like the shooter. The victim had picked the applicant out at an identification parade held eight days after the shooting. The Court of Appeal refused to quash the convictions on the 1st and 3rd counts and declined to certify a point of law of great and general importance. The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under both limbs of s.32(2). Held, dismissing the application: under the 'point of law of great and general importance' limb, none of the five questions raised were points of law at all; all concerned how established principles of criminal law applied to the facts of a particular case, which is the role of trial courts and intermediate appellate courts, not the Court of Final Appeal. Under the 'substantial and grave injustice' limb, the Court of Final Appeal does not sit as a second court of criminal appeal; an applicant must show a departure from accepted norms so serious as to constitute a substantial and grave injustice, citing So Yiu Fung v. HKSAR, FACC No. 5 of 1999, 14 December 1999. The Court of Appeal's conclusion that the jury was properly directed on admissible and sufficient evidence, and that the convictions were neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory, was reached in a normal way and by normal standards. The applicant had not come close to surmounting the high hurdle. Application dismissed.
Legal issues: Whether any of the five questions raised amount to a point of law of great and general importance under s.32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance · Whether the applicant has shown a substantial and grave injustice warranting leave to appeal under s.32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal dismissed.
Cited by 9 cases