Chan Mei Yiu, Paddy and Another v. Secretary for Justice and Others
Read the full judgment text of CACV 172/2010 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 7 September 2012 before Kwan JA, Fok JA, Reyes J.
Civil appeal – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 – great or public importance, or otherwise – reasonable prospects of success – search warrants – Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance, Cap 525 – four consolidated civil appeals (CACV 172–175/2010) arising from HCAL 16–19/2007 – applicants/appellants including CHAN MEI YIU, PADDY, HARMONY GOLD LIMITED, WILTSHIRE TRADING LIMITED, HSU MAY CHUN, KATHERINE, CS SECRETARIES LIMITED, and LOONG PO MANAGEMENT LIMITED – respondents including SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, LEUNG KING HUNG Detective Senior Inspector, and a Magistrate sitting at Eastern Magistracy on 16 January 2007 – whether the questions involved in the intended appeal are of great or public importance or otherwise ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal – whether the appellants have reasonable prospects of success – Court of Appeal had on 8 May 2012 dismissed the four substantive appeals for the reasons in the judgment of Fok JA – five questions formulated in each Notice of Motion corresponding to issues 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 in the substantive judgment – only new legal argument was reliance on Dotcom v AG [2012] NZHC 1494, which did not assist the appellants – held, leave refused on both the great or public importance limb and the 'or otherwise' limb – Notices of Motion dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Legal issues: Whether leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal should be granted
Outcome: Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; all four Notices of Motion dismissed.
Cites 1 case
|
CACV 172/2010, CACV 173/2010, CACV 174/2010, CACV 172/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 172 OF 2010 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 16 OF 2007) ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________ AND CACV 173/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 173 OF 2010 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 17 OF 2007) ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________ AND CACV 174/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 174 OF 2010 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 18 OF 2007) ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________ AND CACV 175/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2010 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 19 OF 2007) ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________ (Heard Together) Before: Hon Kwan, Fok JJA and Reyes J in Court Date of Hearing: 7 September 2012 Date of Judgment: 7 September 2012 ________________________ J U D G M E N T ________________________ Hon Kwan JA (giving the judgment of the Court): 1.On 8 May 2012, we gave judgment dismissing four appeals for the reasons given in the judgment of Fok JA. The appellants seek leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal, pursuant to section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, on the ground that the questions involved in the intended appeal are ones which, by reason of their great or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision. 2.Five questions were formulated in each of the Notices of Motion. I do not propose to set them out. They correspond to issues 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 as set out in paragraphs 32 to 36 of the judgment of Fok JA. The reasons for deciding each of these issues against the appellants appear in paragraphs 37 to 117 of the judgment. 3.Mr McCoy, SC submitted that the five questions raised are of great or public importance, as the appeal is concerned with the appellants’ challenge to the propriety of the application for and the issue and execution of search warrants pursuant to the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance, Cap 525. Even if the questions as framed might be of great or public importance, I am not satisfied on the merits that there are reasonable prospects of success in any of the grounds advanced in respect of the five questions. 4.The only new legal argument of Mr McCoy is his reliance on the New Zealand case of Dotcom v AG [2012] NZHC 1494, which was decided after we handed down our judgment. But as submitted by Mr Grossman, SC, this case does not help the appellants. 5.This is not an appropriate case to grant leave to appeal on the ground that the questions involved are of great general or public importance. Nor is there any exceptional reason why leave should be granted on the “or otherwise” limb. I would dismiss each of the Notices of Motion with costs to the respondents.
Mr Gerard McCoy SC and Mr Steven Kwan, instructed by Haldanes, for the Applicants/Appellants Mr Clive Grossman SC and Mr Wayne Walsh, instructed by the Department of Justice, for the Respondents/Respondents |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 172/2010