HKSAR v. Wong Sau-ming

CACC000085A/2001

CACC 85/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 85 OF 2001

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 17 OF 1998)

______________

______________

Coram: Hon Stuart-Moore VP, Stock & Cheung JJA

Date of Hearing: 18 June 2002

Date of Judgment: 18 June 2002

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Stuart-Moore VP (giving the judgment of the court):

1.This is an application for a certificate under section 32 of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, that a point of law of great and general importance was involved in the decision of this court on 13 May 2002.

2.The Notice of Motion is dated 10 June 2002. Once again we find that counsel has acted in total disregard of the Practice Direction which states that:

"3. Applications for a certificate to the Court of Appeal or the Court of First Instance that the decision involves a point of law of great and general importance should be made immediately after the judgment is given from which the appeal is to be brought."

The Practice Direction continues by stating that:

"4. The applicant should provide the court with a written statement of the point of law involved. Submissions on the application will then be heard and determined.

5. If either party requests for time to prepare the written statement or submissions and obtains an adjournment, an early date will be fixed for the resumed hearing."

3.No satisfactory explanation has been given for the delay in this case, and indeed, counsel did not consider the delay a matter worthy even of mention in his written submission to the court. On the ground of delay alone, we would be justified in refusing a certificate.

4.The point of law on which we are invited to certify is as follows:

"When the Trial Judge has granted the application by the defence to put before the Jury the facts and reasons for verdict of a previous case, where the same police officer has given evidence and the defendant is acquitted, under the principle that if the evidence of the police officer in the previous case is demonstrated to have been disbelieved, the Jury should be made aware of such fact under the case of R v John Edwards (1991) Cr App R 48 at 57, is it wrong in law, to allow the Prosecution to address the Jury by the Trial Judge and/or for the Trial Judge to direct the Jury, that the Jury is entitled to examine and analyse the reasons for verdict of the previous case and to decide whether the police evidence in the previous case is disbelieved or his evidence is simply doubted?"

5.We do not consider that this case gave rise to any point of law of great and general importance. This court, in arriving at its decision, applied well-established law.

6.The application is refused.

Representation:

Mr Cheung Wai-sun, SADPP, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent.

Mr Richard Wong, instructed by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Applicant.