HKSAR v. Wong Wai Lun
Read the full judgment text of CACC 512/1996 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 25 August 1999.
1. The applicant, Wong Wai-lun, was convicted on 2 September 1996 of two charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs. He was sentenced to a total of 24 years imprisonment. In March 1997 this Court refused his application for leave to appeal against sentence. On 9 February 1999 almost 3 years after his conviction, he applied for leave to appeal against conviction.
Cited by 2 cases
|
CACC000512A/1996 CACC 512/1996 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 512 OF 1996 (ON APPEAL FROM HCC 155 OF 1996)
--------------------------- Coram: Hon Nazareth V-P, Stuart Moore V-P and Keith JA in Court Date of Hearing: 25 August 1999 Date of Judgment: 25 August 1999 ---------------------- J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Nazareth V-P (giving the judgment of the Court) : 1. The applicant, Wong Wai-lun, was convicted on 2 September 1996 of two charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs. He was sentenced to a total of 24 years imprisonment. In March 1997 this Court refused his application for leave to appeal against sentence. On 9 February 1999 almost 3 years after his conviction, he applied for leave to appeal against conviction. 2. The only explanations he has given us for this very long delay and one that is compounded by his having already had an application for leave to appeal against sentence, considered and refused, are these. First, he says, that he had made applications for legal aid and asked for documents. Second, he says, the Legal Aid Department told him they had granted legal aid and then reversed their decision. Third, that when he received the documents, he found they were not all there. 3. Pressed about the reasons for his actual delay, particularly after dismissal of his application for leave to appeal against sentence on 7 March 1997, all he is able to advance as reasons are these. First, that he did not know the procedure. Second, that he concentrated on his appeal on sentence because he had heard from some acquaintance that one proceeded step by step, and he decided he would later on appeal against conviction after having dealt with the application for leave to appeal against sentence. And third, that eventually upon support from his family materialising, he decided he would apply for leave but then they were unable to raise the money. 4. We can find no justification whatsoever in these reasons for granting leave to appeal after so long a period. We accordingly refuse leave.
Representation: Mr I.C. McWalters, SADPP and Miss Winnie Ho, SGC for Director of Public Prosecutions Applicant in person |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACC 512/1996