HKSAR v. Chan So Ngor

HCMA823/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.823 OF 2004

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 3757 OF 2003)

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

BETWEEN

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

Before : Hon Pang J in Court

Date of Hearing : 23 September 2004

Date of Judgment : 23 September 2004

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1.This is an application by Madam Chan So Ngor for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal pursuant to section 33 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (“the Ordinance”). 

2.The applicant was convicted in the magistracy on two charges of conspiracy to defraud.  She was sentenced to a concurrent prison term of six months which was suspended for a period of three years.  Her appeal against conviction and sentence was heard in the Court of First Instance on 10 September 2004 and conviction were both dismissed on the same day.  She now applies under section 33 of the Ordinance for leave. 

3.There are four pages of homemade grounds in support of the application and the applicant was invited to supplement to her grounds this morning.  Her grounds can be distilled into three broad categories.  This first one being she never had any intention to defraud the alleged victims of the charges.  Secondly, the evidence presented in the magistracy did not support her conviction.  These two points have been dealt with in the appeal against conviction.  The criticism on the court’s approach on the evidence and on the issue of credibility of witnesses is peculiar to every case.  Insofar as they do not involve a point of law which is of great general importance, the application cannot succeed under this head. 

4.In the third that the applicant complains that she did not receive a fair trial in the sense that grave injustice had been done to her in the course of the proceedings. 

5.In her submission this morning, she levelled criticism at the Duty Lawyer Scheme generally.  She also saw fit to criticise the officers of the Duty Lawyer Scheme in handling her case and on the competence of the lawyer assigned to handle her case.  As they can loosely be grouped under the head that grave injustice has been done to her, the proper forum is for her to go before the leave committee of the Court of Final Appeal to pursue her application.

6.For the reasons given, the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is dismissed.

Mr Jackson Poon, SGC of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent

Appellant in person