The Queen v. Lee Yuen Chung

CACC000470/1984

BETWEEN

___________

Coram: Roberts, C. J., McMullin, V.-P. & Silke, J. A.

Date of Hearing: 21 November 1984

Date of Judgment: 21 November 1984

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

Silke, J. A.:

1. This is an application for an extension of the time for the giving of notice of the application for leave and an extension of time within which to give notice of appeal against sentence.

2. The applicant was convicted on the 6th April 1984 and sentenced to five years' imprisonment on the 17th April. The offence with which he was charged and convicted was possession of arms without a licence and possession of ammunition.

3. He sought leave to appeal against his conviction and that application was refused. He subsequently sought leave to appeal against that conviction yet again and out of time. That matter was dealt with on the 14th September of this year, and the application was refused.

4. He was, on the 14th September, made aware that the Court, at the first hearing of the application concerning conviction, had drawn the attention of the Law Society, through the Registrar, Supreme Court, to complaints the applicant had made as to the legal representation afforded him.  He was advised that he himself should take the same course, in other words, draw his complaints personally to the notice of the Law Society.

5. The present application was filed on the 10th October accompanied by an affidavit. There were also grounds filed - those grounds relate to the conviction rather than to the sentence.  The affidavit gives no reason why the application is now being brought some six months out of time.  The applicant was aware that he was entitled to appeal against both conviction and sentence at the same time.  That notice was endorsed upon both the first and second application forms which he signed.

6. This morning Counsel asked for an adjournment and informed us that his instructing solicitors, if an adjournment were not granted, had no further instructions to appear for the applicant.  We are to be given a full explanation in writing by the solicitors concerned as to why such instructions were accepted and I will say no more about that.

7. We see no reason why the application for leave out of time should be granted in this case.

8. We would add this: even if the matter were to be heard in full we can see no reason, on its face, as to why we should interfere with that which appears to be a very proper sentence.

9. In respect of the complaints which the applicant had already made and the reference by another Division of this Court to the Law Society, the Registrar, Supreme Court is requested to enquire of the Law Society as to what steps have been taken in the matter.

Representation:

Stephen Chow, Esq. instructed by Messrs. David K. W. Tsang & Co. for the Applicant.

Miss D. M. Crebbin for Crown/Respondent.