HKSAR v. Ejegi Edwin Robort

HCMA 197/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 197 OF 2014

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 3634 OF 2013)

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.This is the appellant’s application for a certificate to the Court of Final Appeal to certify that a point of law of great and general importance is involved in his case.

2.The appellant was convicted of an offence of obstructing a police officer in the due execution of his duty, contrary to Section 36(b) of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance Cap 212 of the Laws of Hong Kong.

3.He pleaded not guilty and was convicted, after trial, and sentenced to 7 days’ imprisonment on 28 February 2014.  He appealed his conviction and sentence.  On 20 August 2014, the appellant’s appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.  The appellant was ordered to serve his remaining sentence of imprisonment.

4.The appellant has attached his grounds in support of his application in his Notice of Motion dated 26 August 2014 and also a supplemental ground submitted on 10 September 2014.  In these two homemade grounds of appeal, there are no grounds of which the appellant identifies a point of law, let alone a point of law of great and general importance.  His homemade grounds are basically in support of factual matters in that the magistrate was wrong in finding that the appellant had obstructed the police officers in the due execution of his duty.

5.The appellant, in his own words, says that the he is innocent and the story portrayed by the police officers is a forgery.  The obstruction to the police did not happen.  He therefore is alleging that the police officers were not telling the truth.  This is a factual matter which has already been decided and is not a matter pertaining to law.

6.In those circumstances, the appellant’s application for a point of law of great and general importance in this case to be certified, is therefore dismissed.

Mr Prakash L Daryanani, SPP, of the Department of Justice, for the respondent

The appellant appeared in person