HKSAR v. Man Wai Ming

Read the full judgment text of CACC 254/1998 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 26 September 2000 before Mayo Ag. CJHC, Leong JA, Beeson J.

1. This application for a certificate to be issued pursuant to section 32 of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 is many months out of time. The explanation given by the applicant for the delay is not such as to justify us in granting leave to proceed out of time. A further factor which has been weighed by us is that the contemplated appeal is devoid of merit. The issues which the applicant seeks to persuade us to certify were the same issues which were considered by the Court of Appea

Legal issues: Leave to appeal out of time – section 32(2) CFAO

Outcome: Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal out of time refused.

Cited by 3 cases

Case No.CACC 254/1998
Court
Court of Appeal
Date26 Sep 2000
JudgeMayo Ag. CJHC, Leong JA, Beeson J
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACC000254A/1998

CACC 254/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 254 OF 1998

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 430/1997)

__________________

IN THE MATTER of an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against conviction out of time from CACC No. 254 of 1998

And

IN THE MATTER of Section 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484

______________

BETWEEN
HKSAR Respondent
AND
MAN WAI MING Applicant

______________

Coram: Hon Mayo Ag. CJHC, Leong JA and Beeson J in Court

Date of Hearing: 26 September 2000

Date of Decision: 26 September 2000

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

Hon Mayo Ag. CJHC (giving the decision of the Court):

1. This application for a certificate to be issued pursuant to section 32 of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 is many months out of time. The explanation given by the applicant for the delay is not such as to justify us in granting leave to proceed out of time. A further factor which has been weighed by us is that the contemplated appeal is devoid of merit. The issues which the applicant seeks to persuade us to certify were the same issues which were considered by the Court of Appeal on his appeal. As was stated then the directions given by the Judge were impeccable and no question of great or general importance arises.

2. This being the case the motion is denied.

(Simon Mayo) (Arthur Leong) (C M Beeson)
Chief Judge, High Court (Ag.) Justice of Appeal Judge of the Court of First Instance

Representation:

Mr P S Chapman, SADPP of the Department of Justice, for the respondent

Man Wai-ming, the applicant in person

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under CACC 254/1998