HKSAR v. Lui Kin Hong Jerry

CACC000378C/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 219 OF 1997)

-------------------------------

Coram: Power, V-P., Mayo & Stuart-Moore, JJ.A.

Date of Hearing: 5 March 1999

Date of Decision: 5 March 1999

----------------------

D E C I S I O N

----------------------

Stuart-Moore, J.A. (giving the decision of the Court):

1. This is an application under section 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap.484 for a certificate that points of law of great and general importance are involved in the decision of this court. Three questions are posed on which we are asked to grant a certificate. These are:

"1. When documents forming part of the business records of a company are tendered on the basis of them being relevant to a fact in issue rather than as to the truth of their contents, is it necessary for the purpose of rendering them admissible, for the tenderer to comply with section 22 of the Evidence Ordinance?

2. In determining the admissibility of statements contained in documents, tendered as prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, in accordance with section 22 of the Evidence Ordinance, is the court entitled to draw inferences from the surrounding circumstances and the documents themselves?

3. Where statements contained in documents produced by a computer, which have been adopted as part of the business records of a company, are tendered as prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, is the tenderer required to comply with the provisions of section 22 or section 22A of the Evidence Ordinance?"

2. We are satisfied, despite Mr. McCoy's objection, that we should certify on questions 2 and 3. The first question, however, deals with a matter which this court did not have to decide and, while it may be said to raise a point of law that meets the criteria set out in section 32(2), we do not for this reason consider that we should certify on that question. Indeed, Mr. Reading has not pressed his application on the first question although we fully appreciate, if leave is given by the Court of Final Appeal, that the court may wish to hear argument upon it.

Representation:

Mr. John Reading, S.A.D.P.P. for D.P.P./Respondent

Mr. Gerard McCoy, S.C. & Mr. Raymond Pierce instructed by Messrs. C.L. Chow & Lam for Applicant.