HKSAR v. Hung John Terence
Read the full judgment text of CACC 235/2009 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 14 October 2010.
1. This application asks us to certify, for the purpose of Section 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, that two points of law of great general and public importance were involved in our judgment in these proceedings, handed down on 8 July 2010, namely
Cited by 3 cases
|
CACC235/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 235 OF 2009 (ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 1047 OF 2008) ____________________
Before: Hon Kwan JA, Wright and Line JJ Date of Hearing: 14 October 2010 Date of Decision: 14 October 2010 ____________________ D E C I S I O N ____________________ Hon Line J: 1.This application asks us to certify, for the purpose of Section 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, that two points of law of great general and public importance were involved in our judgment in these proceedings, handed down on 8 July 2010, namely
2.We refuse the application and decline to certify. In our view, the case for the approach that this court adopted in HKSAR v Fung Hok Cheung [2008] 5 HKLRD invites no further debate. The argument advanced to the contrary lacks sufficient force to move us to grant a certificate.
Mr Jonathan Man, Senior Public Prosecutor of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent Mr Barrie Barlow, Senior Counsel and Mr Kevin Egan, instructed by Messrs Robertsons, for the Applicant Leave to appeal by the applicant to Court of Final Appeal refused. Please refer to FAMC85/2010 dated 22 February 2011 | ||||||||||||||||||
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACC 235/2009