Li Wing Kei v. HKSAR

Read the full judgment text of FAMC 39/2005 on BabelCite. This FAMC judgment was delivered on 31 May 2005.

1. For the purposes of this application for leave to appeal, we assume without deciding that the judge’s decision to revoke bail is a final decision within s.31(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap.484.  The applicant therefore has to show that he has an arguable case that substantial and grave injustice has been done.

Case No.FAMC 39/2005
Court
FAMC
Date31 May 2005
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

FAMC No. 39 of 2005

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION 

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 39 OF 2005 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM
HCCC NO. 134 OF 2004)

_____________________

Between:

  LI WING KEI Applicant
  and  
  HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION Respondent

_____________________

Appeal Committee: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ

Date of Hearing: 31 May 2005

Date of Determination: 31 May 2005

______________________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

______________________________

Chief Justice Li :

1.For the purposes of this application for leave to appeal, we assume without deciding that the judge’s decision to revoke bail is a final decision within s.31(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap.484.  The applicant therefore has to show that he has an arguable case that substantial and grave injustice has been done.

2.After his decision to revoke bail in the morning of 5 May 2005, the judge was asked to review his decision on two occasions, in the afternoon of 5 May and again on 12 May.  Although the judge did not invite submissions when he made his initial decision, the judge heard submissions on the subsequent occasions.  On both occasions, he decided not to change his earlier decision.

3.The question of bail depends on the circumstances of each case.  The matter was argued before the judge.  There is no question of the discretion being exercised afresh.

4.No arguable case has been established that the judge’s decision constitutes a substantial and grave injustice.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused.

(Andrew Li)
Chief Justice
(Kemal Bokhary)
Permanent Judge
(R A V Ribeiro)
Permanent Judge

Mr Michael Blanchflower, SC and Mr Eric Cheung (instructed by Messrs David Lo & Partners) for the applicant

Mr Michael Poll (instructed by the Department of Justice) for the respondent