HKSAR v. Singh Balraj

HCMA001151A/2002

HCMA 1151/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1151 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM TWCC 2481 OF 2002)

____________

____________

Coram: The Hon Mrs Justice V. Bokhary in Court

Date of Hearing: 5 August 2003

Date of Decision: 5 August 2003

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.By a judgment delivered on 28 February 2003, I dismissed this Applicant's appeal against a conviction in the Magistrate's Court of dealing with dutiable goods otherwise than in accordance with the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance, (Cap. 109), contrary to section 17(1) of that Ordinance as read with section 46(3) thereof.

2.Now, by a Notice of Motion taken out on 25 July 2003, he asks me to certify that a point of law of great and general importance is involved. His Notice of Motion says as follows:

"The Magistrate wrongly failed to evaluate the evidence of mine properly or at all.

The Magistrate boldly stated without giving any supporting reason that he did not believe the evidence of mine.

The Magistrate gave no reason whatsoever as to why he formed this view.

The Magistrate failed to consider my legal defence in the case.

The Magistrate merely recited the prosecution evidence and rejected the evidence of mine without any or any proper reasoning or analysis.

I now hereby would like your worship that allow me to appeal to prove some new evidence."

3.When filing his Notice of Motion, the Applicant also filed an affirmation dealing with why his application for a certificate was filed out of time. If I thought that there was a proper basis for granting a certificate, I would not decline one just because the application for it was filed out of time. But although I have some sympathy for the Applicant in his plight, I see no proper basis for granting a certificate that any, let alone any arguable, point of law of great and general importance is involved.

4.The application is therefore refused.

Representation:

Mr E. L. McGuinniety, instructed by Messrs Tang, Wong & Cheung, for the Appellant.

Mr Prakash L. Daryanani, SGC of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent.