Secretary for Justice v. Lam Ping Cheung
Read the full judgment text of CACC 248/2006 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 14 July 2009.
1. The application for certification of points of law said to be of great and general importance under section 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, is dismissed. Essentially, it is said that this Court, in its majority judgment handed down on 21 May 2009, failed to take sufficiently into account the principle of double jeopardy when increasing the sentence of the Applicant in a review of sentence.This principle (or, perhaps more accurately, practice) is one that has
Cites 3 cases
|
CACC 248/2006 CACC 248/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 248 OF 2006 (ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 298 OF 2005) _________________________ CAAR 8/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL APPLICATION FOR REVIEW NO. 8 OF 2006 (ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 298 OF 2005) _________________________
_________________________ BETWEEN
_________________________ Before : Hon Ma CJHC, Tang VP & Wright J in Court Date of Hearing : 14 July 2009 Date of Judgment: 14 July 2009 ______________ J U D G M E N T ______________ Hon Ma CJHC : 1.The application for certification of points of law said to be of great and general importance under section 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, is dismissed. Essentially, it is said that this Court, in its majority judgment handed down on 21 May 2009, failed to take sufficiently into account the principle of double jeopardy when increasing the sentence of the Applicant in a review of sentence.This principle (or, perhaps more accurately, practice) is one that has been applied in these courts where appropriate in a number of cases : Attorney General v Wong Kwok Wai [1991] 2 HKLR 384; Secretary for Justice v Tseung Mang Ka [2001] 2 HKLRD 115. 2.The complaint made by the Applicant is really that the Court of Appeal has given no discount, not that there is any doubt that the principle exists in appropriate cases.It is also to be observed that this point was not advanced by the Applicant in the submissions presented to this Court in the review proceedings.In the circumstances, it is inappropriate to grant the Certificate.
Mr Roger Beresford, instructed by Department of Justice for the Respondent Mr Graham Harris & Mr Benson Tsoi, instructed by Messrs Pang Wan & Choi for the Applicant |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under CACC 248/2006