Ho Shau Hong v. The Commissioner of Police and Another

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1986, No. 148
(Civil)

BETWEEN

_____________________

Coram: Hon. Cons, V.-P., Yang & Kempster, JJ.A.

Date of hearing: 6^th January, 1987

Date of delivery of ruling: 6^th January, 1987

_____________________

RULING

_____________________

Cons, V.P. delivered the ruling of the Court:

1.  On the 27^th October Power J., conducting a judicial review, granted a declaration that it was unlawful for the Commissioner of Police and his officers to disclose to the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club information which had been obtained in the execution of particular gambling authorisations and a search warrant. He further ordered that the Commissioner and his officer should not disclose the same information. And he made an order for costs against the Commissioner and the Club.

2.  Both the Commissioner and the Club have served Notices of Appeal. The grounds of their two separate appeals are by no means identical but obviously arise from the same matter.

3.  The appeal was originally fixed to come on in January this year. An application was made to this Court for those dates to be vacated and for the appeal to be refixed. The Court agreed and ordered it to be done in consultation with the diaries of Counsel. That was done on the 12^th December last year and the hearing was fixed for 2 days in March, that is the 13^th and 16^th March.

4.  Seven days later, on the 19^th December, the Jockey Club filed a motion to vacate those dates and to refix other dates, again in consultation with the diaries of Counsel. We observe in passing that those responsible for drafting the motion may have been in some doubt as to where they were, because the motion is headed in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal and it refers to these proceedings as an action.

5.  Be that as it may, the motion was unsupported by affidavit until yesterday afternoon. The affidavit now filed sets out quite simply that those responsible for fixing the dates with the Court clerk in consultation with the diaries of their own Counsel had, as far as Counsel for the Jockey Club were concerned, failed to make themselves properly aware of the dates when he would in fact be available. As a result dates have been fixed which are not convenient to him.

6.  There is no objection from the other parties involved in the appeal, and the Commissioner of Police has expressly accepted, through his Counsel, that the matter is not one of such urgent importance that it should be dealt with as quickly as possible. Convenience of Counsel is normally no reason for changing dates which have been already fixed. But as this Court had earlier accepted that in this particular instance account should be taken of the availability of Counsel and the only reason that it was not was the fault of the solicitors concerned, we think it would be wrong to hold that against the lay client.

7.  For those reasons we do with some reluctance accede to the motion and make an order in the terms thereof.

W. Allan (M/s Hampton, Winter & Glynn) for Applicant/Respondent to motion

B. Whaley, Crown Counsel for 1^st Respondent

W. Stone (M/s Johnson, Stokes & Master) for 2^nd Respondent/Applicant of the motion