Vivien Kwok Ping Lee v. Chief Election Officer

cacv 205/2005

in the high court of the

hong kong special administrative region

court of appeal

civil appeal no. 205 of 2005

(on appeal from HCAL No. 62 of 2005)

______________________

BETWEEN

______________________

Before: Hon Rogers VP and Le Pichon JA in Court

Date of Hearing: 21 October 2005

Date of Judgment: 21 October 2005

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

Hon Rogers VP:

1.This is an appeal from a decision of Hartmann J given in writing on 23 June 2005 when he refused leave to apply for judicial review.  In that decision he said:

“	I have read the extensive papers in this matter.  The applicant has made numerous points of a political and/or sociological nature.  However, I regret that, in my judgment, the material provided by the Applicant has not disclosed matters which in law might, on further consideration, demonstrate an arguable case for the grant of the relief sought.  No request for an oral hearing of the leave application has been made, at least I have not been able to locate any request among the papers, and accordingly leave must be refused on the papers only.
	The applicant should be advised that the court in judicial review may only consider the lawfulness of the administrative, executive and legal actions taken.  It does not have jurisdiction to determine any ideal form of government or constitutional process.  Suggested unlawful action must be clearly identified and the basis upon which it is unlawful set out in a way that is capable of comprehension.
	While the applicant no doubt sincerely wishes and has attempted to make many points which concern an improvement of our constitutional system, I have been unable to identify any attack on the lawfulness of the election process which is set out in a manner sufficiently comprehensible to enable me to grant leave.”

2.At the commencement of this hearing, the Applicant asked for Mrs Justice Le Pichon to recuse herself on the basis that she had adjudicated on a number of occasions connected with matrimonial proceedings in which the applicant was involved.  That does not constitute a ground for recusal.  There are many occasions on which judges are called upon to sit in cases where one litigant has appeared in other cases and hence that application was refused.

3.The Applicant then applied for an adjournment.  No proper grounds were shown for her failure to obtain legal representation before today.  The applicant explained that she had sought advice from a number of lawyers who all said that they were too busy to be able to be involved, but that does not give grounds for an adjournment.

4.In my view, no criticism that can be made of Hartmann J’s decision.  As far as I can see, the Applicant’s submissions are almost entirely incomprehensible.  If the Applicant has a comprehensible complaint it was that she was not given an opportunity to become Chief Executive but, as far as I can see, the proper election procedures were conducted and I see no grounds for granting leave to bring judicial review proceedings.

Hon Le Pichon JA:

5.I agree.

The Applicant/Appellant, in person, present