Secretary for Justice v. Jerry Lui Kin Hong

Read the full judgment text of on BabelCite. was delivered on 3 March 2000.

1. This is the judgment of the Court on costs.

Cited by 1 case

Case No.[2000] 1 HKC 95
Court
Date03 Mar 2000
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

FACC000003A/1999

FACC No. 3 of 1999

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

FINAL APPEAL NO. 3 OF 1999 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPEAL FROM CACC NO. 378 OF 1998)

_____________________

Between:
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE Appellant
AND
JERRY LUI KIN HONG Respondent

_____________________

Court: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Litton PJ, Mr Justice Ching PJ, Mr Justice Nazareth NPJ and Lord Hoffmann NPJ

Date of Judgment: 3 March 2000

___________________________________

JUDGMENT ON COSTS

___________________________________

Mr Justice Litton PJ:

1. This is the judgment of the Court on costs.

2. On 14 December 1999 we allowed the Secretary for Justice's appeal and remitted the matter to the Court of Appeal to hear the remaining grounds, reserving the question of costs to be decided after receiving the parties' written submissions.

3. The matter falls within a narrow compass. Mr Lui's conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal on the basis of a point of law taken by counsel on Mr Lui's behalf; the point was unmeritorious, as determined by our judgment of 14 December 1999. There were other grounds of appeal before the Court of Appeal but these were never considered by the Court of Appeal. They will presumably be now determined by the Court of Appeal, to whom we have remitted the matter. In these circumstances the question of the costs incurred to date in the Court of Appeal should be reserved to be dealt with by that Court. As to the costs incurred in proceedings in this Court, there is no reason why Mr Lui should not be ordered to pay them. We so order.

(Andrew Li) (Henry Litton)
Chief Justice Permanent Judge

(Charles Ching) (G.P. Nazareth) (Lord Hoffmann)
Permanent Judge Non-Permanent Judge Non-Permanent Judge

Representation:

Mr Michael Thomas SC (instructed by the Department of Justice), Mr John Reading SC and Mr Joseph TO Ho-shing, SGC (of that department) for the Appellant

Mr Gerard McCoy SC, Mr Raymond Pierce and Ms Vandana Rajwani (instructed by M/s C.L. Chow & Lam) for the Respondent

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case