HKSAR v. See Wah Lun and Others
Read the full judgment text of CACC 370/2009 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 24 June 2011 before Cheung JA, Kwan JA, Lunn J.
Criminal law – appeal – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – certificate under s.32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) – point of law of great and general importance – 'grave and substantial injustice' limb – witness testifying by live television link under s.79B of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance – whether defendant entitled to see whether witness is reading from witness statement – application to amend the proposed question – original question falling within the 'grave and substantial injustice' limb, which is a matter for the Court of Final Appeal – amended question not arising because no law or practice restricting the parties from seeing the whole of the witness on live television link, and the parties could have requested adjustment of the camera angle – new question not argued on the appeal – Court of Appeal refused the application to amend and dismissed the notice of motion with costs to the Respondent.
Legal issues: Whether to grant certificate that a point of law of great and general importance is involved under s.32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance
Outcome: Application to amend the question refused; notice of motion dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Cited by 2 cases
|
CACC370/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 370 OF 2009 (On Appeal From High Court Criminal Case No. 13 of 2009) ________________________ BETWEEN
Before : Hon Cheung, Kwan JJA and Lunn J in Court Date of Hearing : 24 June 2011 Date of Decision : 24 June 2011 ________________________
________________________ Hon Cheung JA (giving decision of the Court) : 1.In the Notice of Motion the applicants applied for a Certificate from this Court under section 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘the Ordinance’)(Chapter 484) that the following point of law of great and general importance is involved in the decision:
2.Mr. Boyton, counsel for the applicants, recognized that this question appears to fall within the ‘grave and substantial injustice’ limb of section 32(2) of the Ordinance which is a matter that does not concern this Court. He asked for leave to amend the question as follows :
3.In our view, the new question does not arise at all. First, there is no law or practice restricting the parties from seeing the whole of the witness when he gave evidence by the live television link. If the parties wished to see him fully, they could have asked for the angle of the camera to be adjusted. Second, the new question as framed was not an issue before us on appeal. It was not argued that there was an unfair trial because of the restricted view of the witness. 4.Accordingly we will refuse the application to amend and will dismiss the notice of motion with costs to the Respondent.
Mr. William Tam SADPP and Mr. Franco Kuan Ag. SPP of Department of Justice, for the Respondent Mr. David Boyton, instructed by Messrs Lau, Chan & Ko, for the 1st to 5th Applicants |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACC 370/2009