BabelCite

The Queen v. Wong Muk Ping and Another

Read the full judgment text of on BabelCite..

1. On 14th February 1984 Wong Muk-ping was convicted by Deputy Judge O’Dea of an offence of conspiring to traffick in dangerous drugs and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He successfully sought leave from the Court of Appeal to appeal against that conviction. He had applied in the alternative for leave to appeal against sentence. The hearing was treated as the hearing of the appeal and, on 18th October 1984, the conviction was quashed. So, consequentially, was the sentence; both in my opinio

Case No.
Court
Date—
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1984 No. 92
(Criminal)

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

and

Wong Muk-ping & another

Coram: Kempster, J.A.

Date of Hearing: 25th March 1987

Date of Order: 25th March 1987

_________________

ORDER

_________________

Kempster, J.A.

1. On 14th February 1984 Wong Muk-ping was convicted by Deputy Judge O’Dea of an offence of conspiring to traffick in dangerous drugs and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He successfully sought leave from the Court of Appeal to appeal against that conviction. He had applied in the alternative for leave to appeal against sentence. The hearing was treated as the hearing of the appeal and, on 18th October 1984, the conviction was quashed. So, consequentially, was the sentence; both in my opinion conditionally. The condition was that no order to the contrary should be made by the highest Court of Appeal for Hong Kong namely the Privy Council.

2. The Crown obtained special leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council and on 18th March of this year, following a hearing before the Board, an order was made in Council that the conviction of 14th February 1984 should be restored. It has been filed in the Registry. Implicitly and necessarily it follows that the running of the related sentence of imprisonment will resume once Wong has been taken back into custody.

3. Rule 26 of the Order in Council governing appeals from Hong Kong [Statutory Instrument No. 205(9) of 1957] reads;

“The court, meaning the Court of Appeal and pursuant to section 35(2) of the Supreme Court Ordinance, a single Justice of Appeal can constitute the court for present purposes shall conform with and execute any order which Her Majesty in Council may think fit to make on an appeal from a judgment of the court in like manner as any original judgment of the court should or might have been executed.”

4. I declare and order that the conviction entered on 18th October 1984 is and restored and that sentence shall continue to run after surrender.

5. Wong Muk-ping has given evidence before me and affirmed that he is the man who was convicted on 14 February 1984. Mr. Alderdice, who appears on his behalf, indicates that he is ready and willing forthwith to surrender himself into the custody of the Correctional Services Department. The running of the sentence therefore resumes with immediate effect.

6. In the premises the state of play is that Wong is a convicted prisoner undergoing a lawful sentence. But also restored is his application for leave appeal against that sentence and I request that it be listed for an early hearing.

(M Kempster)
Justice of Appeal

Hodge, Dykes for Crown

Alderdice (K.M. Lai & Li) for D1