The Secretary for Justice v. Choy Bing Wing

HCMP4694/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 4694 OF 2003

_______________________

_______________________

Coram:     Deputy High Court Judge Carlson in Chambers

Date of Hearing:   16 March 2010

Date of Ruling:   16 March 2010

____________________

R U L I N G

____________________

1.The first matter for me to decide is whether I should accede to Mr Bing Choy’s summons of 11 March by which he is asking for his application for leave to appeal to be adjourned to a date to be fixed because he wants the tape recording and the transcript of the proceedings on 22 January of this year which resulted in the orders that he now wishes to appeal. The position is, and this is all borne out in the correspondence between the court and Mr Bing Choy, that the transcript has been prepared and is available to him on payment by him of the sum of $1,075.70. He wishes this to be released to him without payment. He says he is entitled to the transcript as of right being a litigant in the proceedings.

2.So far as that is concerned, it always has been the practice of the court to charge for the transcript, and I see no reason to depart from that. There is no suggestion by Mr Bing Choy that he cannot afford to pay this, and I do not think today is an occasion for me to make any exception for him. So, he could have had the transcript. It has been available for some time.

3.So far as the tape recording is concerned, I have declined to let him have a copy of the tape, but I have offered him the facility of making an appointment to come to court to listen to the tape recording and to compare it against the written transcript, if he wishes, but he has declined that offer. And so today he is submitting to me that he has not been able to prepare his application for leave to appeal without these materials, the “raw evidence” as he calls it. But, I am sorry to say, this is of his own making. So, I am going to dismiss this summons with costs.

4.And now I turn to consider his application for leave to appeal. He has got to show a reasonable prospect of success, and I take the view that there is none. He is now at liberty to renew his application to a single Justice of the Court of Appeal. So, his application for leave to appeal will also stand dismissed with costs.

Mr Louie Wong, instructed by the Department of Justice, for the Applicant

Respondent in person, present