Yeung Chun Pong and Others v. Secretary for Justice

Read the full judgment text of HCAL 123/2005 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 10 November 2005.

1. I propose to dismiss the application to set aside leave.

Cites 1 case

On appeal by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd applicants to Court of Appeal. Appeal dismissed. Please refer to the appeal judgment of CACV368/2005
Case No.HCAL 123/2005
Court
High Court CFI
Date10 Nov 2005
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCAL 123/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 123 OF 2005

____________

BETWEEN

  YEUNG CHUN PONG 1st Applicant
  TSE MAY WAH 2nd Applicant
  CHIK KAM FAI 3rd Applicant
  and  
  SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE Respondent

____________

Before: Hon Reyes J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 10 November 2005

Date of Decision: 10 November 2005

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.I propose to dismiss the application to set aside leave.

2.My reason is that I believe that there are special circumstances justifying the hearing of an application for judicial review here, despite ongoing criminal proceedings.

3.The right being asserted (namely, the right not to be tried twice for the same or substantially the same offence) is a serious and fundamental right at common law.

4.If the Applicants are correct, it would be oppressive for them to be tried a second time in Hong Kong, the Applicants having already once been acquitted by a Macau court.  However, if the Applicants’ contention cannot be tested by judicial review now and must await normal appeal following the ongoing criminal proceedings, the Applicants would be oppressed by the very wrong which they are seeking to avert.   The Applicants would by the time of any appeal have already been tried twice.  Their fundamental right (if valid) would have been rendered nugatory.

5.On the other hand, the ongoing criminal proceedings are presently adjourned due to constraints of the trial judge’s diary.  The proceedings will not resume until next year.  It is possible to hear the judicial review this Saturday without (on the footing that the Applicants are wrong) delaying the trial.

6.It goes without saying (and is implicit in my having granted leave for judicial review) that I believe the Applicants have an arguable case.

7.In those circumstances, there seems every reason to proceed with the substantive judicial review hearing this Saturday. 

  (A.T. Reyes)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Ms. Gerard McCoy, SC leading Mr Philip Wong, instructed by Messrs. Lau, Chan & Ko, for the Applicants.

Mr Kevin Zervos, SC/SADPP leading Mr William Tam, SGC and Miss Yasmin Mohamed, GC of Department of Justice , for the Respondents.

On appeal by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd applicants to Court of Appeal. Appeal dismissed. Please refer to the appeal judgment of CACV368/2005
Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 123/2005