Yiu Yiu Nam, Tom v. HKSAR

Read the full judgment text of FAMC 42/2004 on BabelCite. This FAMC judgment was delivered on 5 November 2004.

1. No reasonably arguable point of law of great and general importance is involved.  Nor is it reasonably arguable that anything done or omitted in the courts below constitutes a substantial or grave injustice whether in regard to conviction or in regard to sentence.

Case No.FAMC 42/2004
Court
FAMC
Date05 Nov 2004
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

FAMC No. 42 of 2004

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 42 OF 2004 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM CACC NO. 438 OF 2002)

Between:

  YIU YIU NAM, TOM Applicant
  and  
  HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION Respondent

_____________________

FAMC No. 48 of 2004

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 48 OF 2004 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM CACC NO. 438 OF 2002)

Between:

  CHAN KWONG YEE Applicant
  and  
  HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION Respondent

_____________________

Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ

Date of Hearing: 5 November 2004

Date of Determination: 5 November 2004

______________________

DETERMINATION

______________________

Mr Justice Bokhary PJ:

1.No reasonably arguable point of law of great and general importance is involved.  Nor is it reasonably arguable that anything done or omitted in the courts below constitutes a substantial or grave injustice whether in regard to conviction or in regard to sentence.

2.Both of these applications are dismissed.

(Kemal Bokhary) (Patrick Chan) (R.A.V. Ribeiro)
Permanent Judge Permanent Judge Permanent Judge

Mr Peter Duncan SC and Mr Trevor Beel (instructed by Messrs Peter Mo & Co.) for the applicant in FAMC No. 42 of 2004

Mr Y.C. Yeung (instructed by Messrs Christine M. Koo & Ip) for the applicant in FAMC No. 48 of 2004

Mr Peter Callaghan (instructed by the Department of Justice) for the respondent in both applications

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under FAMC 42/2004