Mr Matt James Pearce v. The Coroners (Mr Josiah Lam and Mr Michael Chan)

HCAL 52/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 52 OF 2007

_________________

BETWEEN

______________________

Before: Hon Reyes J in Court

Date of Hearing: 12 June 2007

Date of Decision: 14 June 2007

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1.Mr Pearce is a political activist.  He seeks leave to review the Coroner’s decision of 4 October 2006 not to hold an inquest into the death of Chief Superintended Stephen Fung King-man.

2.Mr Fung is reported to have committed suicide on 8 September 2006 by jumping off a building in a Kwai Chung estate.  He was apparently on leave at the time, following a previous attempt to kill himself. 

3.Mr Pearce comments in his application that “the earlier attempt coincided with an Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] request for [Mr Fung’s] cooperation”. 

4.He believes that the circumstances of Mr Fung’s death are a matter of “considerable public importance”.  He states that “[w]hilst it is probable that Mr Fung did die from suicide, I believe there needs to be closer examination by an inquest to make 100% certain that it was suicide”.

5.In particular Mr Pearce asserts that:-

“[T]here are unanswered questions about this case and there are suspicious circumstances surrounding his death.  Mr Fung was an extremely senior policeman and the people of Hong Kong have a right to know what was going on.  It is clear that Mr Fung was under considerable pressure from other people in Hong Kong.  I believe the ICAC have a responsibility to the public to say in open court exactly what they knew....”

6.Mr Pearce additionally asks the Court to grant him “the power to interview any person in Hong Kong who can give me information about this case and subpoena them to the inquest to testify if they refuse to come voluntarily”.

7.I shall assume (without accepting) that Mr Pearce has locus to bring the proposed judicial.

8.In my view, his application is nonetheless pure speculation.  There is nothing in it to suggest that the Coroner came to a wrong or irrational decision that no reasonable Coroner could have made.

9.Further, the draconian power of “interviewing any person in Hong Kong” which Mr Pearce seeks is something unknown to Hong Kong law.  It is certainly not a power that the Court can confer.

10.Accordingly, the proposed judicial review is unarguable.  Leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Applicant in person