HKSAR v. Chan Pui Mun
Read the full judgment text of CACC 514/2006 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 16 July 2008 before Cheung JA, Yeung JA, Beeson J.
Criminal law – appeal – certificate under s.32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance – whether points of law of great and general importance – similar fact evidence – admissibility of uncharged conduct evidence – whether defence puts victim's character in issue – facts-sensitive discretionary matters – District Court conviction on 14 charges of assault – Court of Appeal already refused leave to appeal against conviction and sentence on 20 May 2008 – application for certificate dismissed – Court of Appeal judgment of 16 July 2008.
Legal issues: Whether to grant a certificate under s.32(2) of the CFA Ordinance
Outcome: Application by the Applicant for a certificate under s.32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance dismissed.
Cited by 13 cases
|
CACC 514/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL criminal APPEAL NO. 514 OF 2006 (ON APPEAL FROM DCCC No. 543 of 2006 ) _______________________ BETWEEN
______________________ Before: Hon Cheung JA, Yeung JA and Beeson J in Court Date of Hearing: 16 July 2008 Date of Judgment: 16 July 2008
______________________ J U D G M E N T ______________________
Hon Yeung JA (giving the judgment of the Court): 1.On 20 May 2008, this court dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. 2.The applicant now applies to us for a certificate under section 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. 3.The two points of law, which are said to be of great and general importance, are as follows:
4.The admission of relevant evidence as similar fact evidence and the question of whether the defence had put the character of the witness in issue to justify the admission of evidence of his good character are facts-sensitive issues, and very often involve an element of discretion, as established by leading authorities, including decisions of the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong. 5.We had also made clear in our judgment that the evidence relating to the other assaults was relevant to other issues raised by the defence, namely why the victim put up with the applicant’s conduct and his extensive injuries, which could not be explained simply by the 14 charges in question. (See paragraphs 65, 66, 86, 95 and 96 of the judgment) 6.We fail, in the circumstances, to see how it could be appropriate to grant a certificate under section 32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
Ms Mary Sin, SADPP of the Department of Justice for the Respondent. Mr Joseph W Y Tse, SC and Mr Eddie S Chan instructed by Messrs Wong Hui & Co for the Applicant. Application by the Applicant for leave to appeal refused. Please see FAMC45/2008 dated 26 September 2008 |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACC 514/2006