BabelCite

Leung Chun Wai v. HKSAR

Read the full judgment text of FAMC 4/2004 on BabelCite. This FAMC judgment was delivered on 25 March 2004.

1. The magistrate did not express himself as clearly as he might have done. But it is clear enough that the magistrate found - and was entitled to find - that the applicant's objection to the officer's conduct was based on the applicant's view that the police were misguided in following a practice of regarding a person as an organiser on the basis of conduct such as holding a loudhailer. So the magistrate reasoned - and was entitled to reason ? that the applicant knew that the officer was execut

Case No.FAMC 4/2004
Court
FAMC
Date25 Mar 2004
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

FAMC000004/2004

FAMC No. 4 of 2004

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 4 OF 2004 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM HCMA NO. 152 OF 2002)

_____________________

Between:
LEUNG CHUN WAI Applicant
AND
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION Respondent

_____________________

Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ

Date of Hearing: 25 March 2004

Date of Determination: 25 March 2004

_____________________

DETERMINATION

_____________________

Mr Justice Bokhary PJ:

1.The magistrate did not express himself as clearly as he might have done. But it is clear enough that the magistrate found - and was entitled to find - that the applicant's objection to the officer's conduct was based on the applicant's view that the police were misguided in following a practice of regarding a person as an organiser on the basis of conduct such as holding a loudhailer. So the magistrate reasoned - and was entitled to reason ? that the applicant knew that the officer was executing his duty albeit pursuant to a practice which the applicant considered to be misguided.

2.Mr Martin Lee SC for the applicant, arguing ably and powerfully as always, has said everything that can be said in support of this application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. But we are not persuaded that it is reasonably arguable that there has been substantial and grave injustice. Accordingly the application is dismissed.

(Kemal Bokhary) (Patrick Chan) (R.A.V. Ribeiro)
Permanent Judge Permanent Judge Permanent Judge

Representation:

Mr Martin Lee SC and Mr Douglas Kwok (instructed by Messrs Hon & Co and assigned by the Legal Aid Department) for the applicant

Mr Robert S.K. Lee and Mr Robert K.Y. Lee (of the Department of Justice) for the respondent