Wong Miu Chun v. HKSAR

Case No.FAMC 16/1999

Court

FAMC

Date11 Jun 1999

Judge—

Case Document

100%

FAMC000016/1999

FAMC No. 16 of 1999

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 16 OF 1999 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM HCMA NO. 1207 OF 1998)

_____________________

Between:
	WONG MIU CHUN	Applicant

	AND

	HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION	Respondent

_____________________

Appeal Committee: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Litton PJ and Mr Justice Bokhary PJ

Date of Hearing: 11 June 1999

Date of Determination: 11 June 1999

___________________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

___________________________

Mr Justice Bokhary PJ:

1. This applicant was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. She was brought before a magistrate; and in the result the magistrate bound her over. Obviously the magistrate proceeded on the understanding that the applicant understood and was agreeable to that course.

2. However the applicant appealed to the Court of First Instance of the High Court, contending that the magistrate's understanding was incorrect. The applicant said then to the judge - and says now to this Committee - that she had not really agreed to the binding over or at least that if she did, it was only because she had been persuaded to indicate her agreement even though she did not fully understand the position. The judge considered the matter, and ultimately was satisfied that there was no substance in the complaints made in respect of the binding over.

3. The applicant now wishes to appeal further to the Court of Final Appeal. And she is before this Committee seeking leave, out of time, for the bringing of such a final appeal.

4. No point of law arises. So the question for the Committee is whether there is a reasonably arguable case that substantial and grave injustice has occurred. There would be such a case if it was reasonably arguable that the judge had proceeded in the absence of any material or had failed to conduct a proper enquiry into the matter so that the course of justice went seriously awry. We have read these papers carefully and listened with care to everything urged by the applicant; and we are unable to say that there is a reasonably arguable case of any of those matters.

5. In such circumstances, there is no basis for granting leave to appeal and therefore no point in granting an extension to seek such leave. In the result, this application for leave to appeal out of time is dismissed.

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

Representation:

Applicant in person

Miss L. Lai (of the Department of Justice) for the respondent