Oei Hengky Wiryo v. HKSAR

FACC No. 4 of 2006

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION 

FINAL APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2006 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPEAL FROM CACC NO. 109 OF 2005)

_____________________

Between:

_____________________

Court: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ, and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ

Date of Hearing: 15 June 2006

Date of Judgment: 15 June 2006

______________________

D E C I S I O N

______________________

Mr Justice Bokhary PJ:

1.We will extend time for the filing of printed cases, but not to the extent sought. 

2.Regrettably experience shows that it is necessary to remind the legal profession that the time-limits set by the rules are to be complied with, and that it would be dangerous to assume that extensions are to be had for the asking.  Even if consented to, an extension has to be justified upon good and detailed reasons why it was not possible, or it is thought that it will not be possible, to comply with the time-limit concerned. 

3.It should be understood that members of the Court have to do a great deal of reading in advance of hearings.  We count on printed cases and other materials being made available without delay so that we can read them as and when time can be found to do so in between the hearing of appeals, leave applications and single judge applications.

4.Litigants and their legal advisers should understand that the Court’s responsibility is not confined to dealing with their appeals and leave applications.  Our responsibility includes developing the law in the interest of the general public.  That is a relevant consideration when deciding which proposed appeals should be taken on.  Flouting time-limits can imperil leave which has been granted.  Extensions of time are not always the solution if counsel who have been briefed are unable to do the work on time.  Sometimes the solution is for other counsel to be briefed in their stead. 

5.All things considered, we extend time in the present appeal so that the appellant’s printed case must be filed by Friday 15 September 2006 and the respondent’s printed case must be filed by Friday 13 October 2006.

Mr Charles Chan (instructed by Messrs Chiu, Szeto & Cheng) for the appellant

Mr Gavin Shiu (of Department of Justice) for the respondent