HKSAR v. Lui Kin Hong, Jerry
Read the full judgment text of on BabelCite. was delivered on 5 February 1999.
1. As far as the application formerly to quash the conviction is concerned, we make that order. We set aside the sentence that was imposed and all of the consequential orders. For the reasons that are expressed in The Queen v Holgate No.2 (1996) 3 HKC 324, and applying the principles which emerged from that case, we propose not to order a re-trial. So far as the costs of the appeal are concerned, they are granted to the Appellant.
|
CACC000378A/1998 CACC 378 /98 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.378 OF 1998 (ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO. 219 OF 1997)
------------------------------- Coram: Power, Ag. Chief Judge, H.C., Mayo & Stuart-Moore, JJ.A. Date of Hearing: 3, 4 & 5 February 1999 Date of Order: 5 February 1999 ---------------------- O R D E R ---------------------- Stuart-Moore, J.A. (giving the order of the Court): 1. As far as the application formerly to quash the conviction is concerned, we make that order. We set aside the sentence that was imposed and all of the consequential orders. For the reasons that are expressed in The Queen v Holgate No.2 (1996) 3 HKC 324, and applying the principles which emerged from that case, we propose not to order a re-trial. So far as the costs of the appeal are concerned, they are granted to the Appellant.
Representation: Mr. John Reading, S.A.D.P.P. & Mr. Joseph To, S.G.C. for D.P.P./Respondent Mr. Gerard McCoy, S.C. & Mr. Raymond Pierce instructed by Messrs. C.L. Chow & Lam for Applicant. |