Yeung Chung Ming v. Commissioner of Police
Read the full judgment text of CACV 13/2006 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 28 June 2007.
1. It is unnecessary for us to consider whether the questions posed in the Notice of Motion, in particular, the so-called “component questions”, are questions which are involved in our decision, or that they are questions which ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.
Cited by 3 cases
|
CACV 13/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2006 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 125 OF 2003) _________________ BETWEEN
__________________
Before: Hon Tang VP, Hartmann J and Lam J in Court Date of Hearing: 28 June 2007 Date of Decision: 28 June 2007 _______________ D E C I S I O N _______________ Hon Tang VP (giving the decision of the Court): 1.It is unnecessary for us to consider whether the questions posed in the Notice of Motion, in particular, the so-called “component questions”, are questions which are involved in our decision, or that they are questions which ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal. 2.The question involved in this appeal and identified in para. 63 of our judgment is whether the power to withhold pay infringes the presumption of innocence and hence Article 11(1) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383. 3.We are satisfied that this question is one which by reason of its great general or public importance ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision. 4.Accordingly, we grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
Ms. Margaret Ng, instructed by Messrs Hastings & Co., assigned by Director of Legal Aid, for the Applicant. Mr. Nicholas Cooney, instructed by the Department of Justice, for the Respondent. |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 13/2006