Hksar v Petrus Yau

Cited as:[1998] 2 HKLRD 12
Court:Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:FAMC7/1998
Judgment Date:30 Jun 1998
FAMC000007/1998 HKSAR v. PETRUS YAU

FAMC No. 7 of 1998

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 7 OF 1998 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM CACC No. 305 OF 1997)

_____________________

Between:
PETRUS YAU Applicant
AND
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION Respondent

_____________________

Appeal Committee: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Litton PJ and Mr Justice Bokhary PJ in Court

Date of Hearing :30 June 1998

Date of Determination: 30 June 1998

_____________________________

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

_____________________________

Mr Justice Bokhary, PJ:

1. This applicant was convicted in the District Court on a number of charges. They arose out of his activities in connection with the affairs of an employment agency concerned with placing workers from the Philippines with employers in Hong Kong. And they were two of forgery; four of aiding and abetting the making of a false statement to an immigration officer; and four of aiding and abetting the breach of a condition of stay.

2. His efforts to have those convictions quashed in the Court of Appeal failed. He now seeks our leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal in order to renew such efforts there.

3. Such leave is sought on the ground that substantial and grave injustice has been done. The question for us is whether the applicant has made out a reasonably arguable case to that effect.

4. We have considered the applicant's written material and his brief oral remarks. Plainly there was evidence on which a tribunal of fact properly directing itself could legitimately convict. Everything urged by the applicant is directed to points which he contends that the Court of Appeal wrongly rejected: either expressly or by obvious implication since that Court decided against him without express reference to the same.

5. No useful purpose would be served by setting out those points. Suffice it to say that all of them have to do with either how the trial judge assessed the evidence or how he managed his own court and the proceedings before it.

6. In our view nothing done by the trial judge in regard to those matters gives rise to any arguable case of substantial and grave injustice.

7. Accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused.

(Andrew Li)
...

To continue reading

Request your trial