HKSAR v. Wong Tak Keung

Read the full judgment text of FAMC 45/2014 on BabelCite. This FAMC judgment.

1. On the applicant’s Notice of Motion for leave to appeal, we grant leave to appeal on the following questions of law, namely:

Cites 2 cases

Case No.FAMC 45/2014
Court
FAMC
Date
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

FAMC No. 45 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 45 OF 2014 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM CACC NO. 220 OF 2011)

________________________

BETWEEN

HKSAR Respondent
And
WONG TAK KEUNG (黃得強) Applicant

________________________

Appeal Committee: Chief Justice Ma, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ and Mr Justice Fok PJ

Date of Hearing and Determination: 12 August 2014

________________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

________________________

Chief Justice Ma:

1.On the applicant’s Notice of Motion for leave to appeal, we grant leave to appeal on the following questions of law, namely:

(1) Whether the principle that a court in Hong Kong has jurisdiction to try a crime ‘a substantial measure of the activities’ of which took place within [the] jurisdiction stated in HKSAR v Krieger and Another (CACC 99/2012, unrep., 18 December 2013, at §122) citing R v Smith (Wallace Duncan) [2004] QB 1418 at 1433H-1434B has the effect of extending the ambit of s.159A(3) of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) such that in a conspiracy to traffick unlawfully in dangerous drugs from Hong Kong to a place outside Hong Kong, any part of the conspiracy which, although considered on its own, is exclusively extraterritorial is triable in Hong Kong; and

(2) Whether an accused who participated only in a part of the conspiracy which, if considered on its own, is entirely extraterritorial can be tried and convicted of conspiracy under s.159A by a court in Hong Kong.

2.We also grant leave to appeal on the basis that it is reasonably arguable that the applicant’s conviction should be quashed on the ground that, in upholding the conviction, the Court of Appeal expanded the scope of the conspiracy from a conspiracy having one objective to one with multiple objectives and that this expansion gave rise to procedural unfairness.

(Geoffrey Ma)
Chief Justice
(R.A.V. Ribeiro)
Permanent Judge
(Joseph Fok)
Permanent Judge

Ms Margaret Ng and Mr Kay K.W. Chan, instructed by Alan Ho & Co., for the Applicant

Mr Martin Hui SADPP and Mr Ivan Cheung PP, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent