HKSAR v. Lam Yuet Siu

CACC000411B/2002

CACC 411/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 411 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 233 OF 2002)

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

______________

Coram: Hon Stuart-Moore V-P, Stock JA and Lunn J in Court

Date of Hearing: 8 January 2004

Date of Judgment: 8 January 2004

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Hon Stock JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

1.On 6 August 2002 this applicant was convicted by HH Judge Chua in the District Court of five charges - three of theft of choses in action and two of dealing with property which she knew to be the proceeds of an indictable offence. She was sentenced to a total term of three years and five months' imprisonment. On 19 August 2002 she launched an application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. Those applications came before this Court, slightly differently constituted, on 16 May 2003. On that date the applicant, who had earlier been refused leave by the single judge, abandoned her application for leave to appeal against conviction and accordingly that application was dismissed by the court. The court then determined the issue of sentence in her favour in that it set aside a purported amendment by the judge below of the order originally made as to the manner in which a term of three years and five months' imprisonment was to run in relation to an earlier sentence which the applicant was already serving. The details of this Court's determination is to be found in the Reasons handed down on 29 May 2003.

2.By an Affirmation dated 30 May 2003 the applicant seeks to renew her application for leave to appeal against conviction. She asks in other words that the court should treat her abandonment as a nullity. She says now that she was only served with the respondent's submissions two days before the hearing on 16 May and was not aware what she could do about it, and she says that when she said in court on 16 May that she wanted to abandon her application she made a mistake. She tells us today that she has been advised by friends and others that she has grounds to appeal against conviction.

3.We are entirely satisfied that when the applicant abandoned her application she knew full well what she was doing. No complaint was made by her to the court on 16 May about late service of arguments, and as the record shows she is no stranger to the courts nor, as the voluminous papers amply show, is she at all reluctant to raise and press matters which are even remotely perceived by her as being possibly in her interest to pursue. She has not begun to show that in the act of abandonment her mind did not go with her deed; and therefore she has failed to demonstrate that the abandonment was a nullity. Her application is therefore refused.

Representation:

Applicant in person

Mr K P Zervos, SC, SADPP of the Department of Justice for the Respondent