Cheung Hung Ngai v Hksar

Cited as:[1998] 1 HKLRD 330
Court:Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:FAMC9/1997
Judgment Date:13 Jan 1998
FAMC000009/1997 CHEUNG HUNG NGAI v. HKSAR

FAMC No. 9 of 1997

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 9 OF 1997 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM CACC No. 666 OF 1995)

_____________________

BETWEEN
CHEUNG HUNG NGAI Applicant
AND
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION Respondent

_____________________

Appeal Committee: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Litton, PJ and Mr Justice Ching, PJ

Date of Hearing: 13 January 1998

Date of Determination: 13 January 1998

-------------------------

DETERMINATION

-------------------------

Mr Justice Litton, PJ:

1. This is the determination of the Appeal Committee on an application for leave to appeal brought under s32(1) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.

2. The background to this application is as follows. The applicant was convicted on 22 August 1995 on one charge of false accounting brought under s19(1)(a) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210, and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. On 18 October 1996 his application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. A year later, on 17 October 1997, his application to the Court of Appeal to certify two points of law for the Court of Final Appeal's consideration was dismissed. The two points of law were as follows:

(1) A court of law in Hong Kong has no authority to overturn acts of state, namely decisions of the National People's Congress.

(2) The Hong Kong Bill of Rights prevented the applicant at trial from obtaining a fair adjudication.

3. The applicant now applies to us to seek leave to appeal. He relies on both limbs in section 32(2). First, that the two points of law are points of great and general importance and we should so certify. Secondly, that it has been shown that grave and substantial injustice has been done.

4. The applicant has also taken out two summonses: (1) For an order requiring the Immigration Department to produce the travel records of four individuals for the period 26 September to 31 October 1992. (2) For an order requiring the prosecutor to produce various documents for the purpose of checking and comparison.

5. In taking out these summonses, the applicant appears to have it in mind that, if leave to appeal be granted, there should in effect be a partial re-trial of the charge of false...

To continue reading

Request your trial