HKSAR v. Kwok Chi Fai

CACC000473/2000

CACC 473/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 473 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 703/2000)

__________________

______________

Coram: Hon Stock J.A. in Court

Date of Hearing: 20 December 2000

Date of Judgment: 20 December 2000

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

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

1. This is an application for bail pending appeal. The applicant was convicted in September 2000 by HH Judge Sweeney of two charges of wounding with intent, in respect of which he received sentences on each charge of one year's imprisonment to run concurrently. It follows that, assuming remission of sentence for good behaviour, this applicant is likely to complete his term of imprisonment by about May or early June 2001.

2. The primary basis on which Mr Grounds advances the application at this stage is that the applicant may well have served a substantial part of his sentence before the appeal can be heard. I proceed on the assumption, which I believe to be safe that the appeal is likely to be heard within two to three months. I take into account the fact that a substantial period of imprisonment will then have been served. However, I have read with considerable care the very full judgment in this case by HH Judge Sweeney, and the grounds of appeal which are thus far advanced. Without for a moment seeking to predetermine the appeal itself, the grounds of appeal, in the light of extraordinarily comprehensive and compelling reasons for verdict, come nowhere near showing at this stage that this appeal has any prospect of success. Taking that factor into account, and the other grounds which Mr Grounds has advanced, I have decided in these circumstances to refuse the application for bail.

3. I will, however, say this, that Mr Grounds has apparently only recently come into this case. He tells me, and of course I accept from him that he has not had a full opportunity of consulting his client¹ or of speaking to counsel who have previously been involved in the case. Nor has he had an opportunity of examining the case or of coming to any determination as to whether he might wish to see the transcript in order to pursue the ground, which is at the moment pleaded, that there were material inconsistencies with the prosecution evidence which give rise to a proper complaint. I shall say for the purpose of judgment that if the grounds are perfected and if counsel having taken the steps at which he has hinted, takes the view that they demonstrate a more substantial chance of success than is presently shown to me, it will be open to the applicant to renew his application for bail in the light of such perfected grounds. I take that step because I am conscious of the basis upon which I am at present refusing bail and of the relatively short period of imprisonment. At the moment, however, the prospects of any success in the appeal appear to me to be so altogether negligible that it would not be cognizant, as it seems to me, with my duty to grant bail. Accordingly, and subject to the proviso as I have mentioned, the application for bail is dismissed.

Representation:

Mr C. Grounds instructed by Messrs Littlewoods for the Applicant

Mr W.D. Moultrie for DPP for the Respondent

1 Note: After oral delivery of this judgment, Mr Grounds clarified that he had in fact acted for the applicant at the sentencing stage. This does not affect my view of the matter.