Hksar v Wong Koon Ho Titus

Judgment Date30 March 2015
Year2015
Judgement NumberHCMA366/2013
Subject MatterMagistracy Appeal
CourtHigh Court (Hong Kong)
HCMA366A/2013 HKSAR v. WONG KOON HO TITUS

HCMA 366 of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 366 OF 2013

(On appeal from ESCC 2192 OF 2012)

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

IN THE MATTER of an application for Certificate to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal by the Appellant pursuant to section 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484
AND IN THE MATTER of the Judgment of the Court of First Instance handed down on 6 March 2015 in Magistracy Appeal No 366 of 2013

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

BETWEEN

HKSAR Respondent
and
WONG KOON HO TITUS Appellant

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

Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Woo in Court
Date of hearing: 30 March 2015
Date of decision: 30 March 2015

DECISION

1. I gave judgment in this magisterial appeal on 6 March 2015 (“the Judgment”), dismissing the Appellant’s appeal against his conviction and allowed his appeal against sentence. By a Notice of Motion taken out on 12 March 2015 as amended on 25 March 2015, the Appellant seeks a certificate from me that the following point of law of great and general importance is involved in the Judgment, namely,

Whether the appeal judge was entitled to form the view that the trial magistrate had only been influenced by inadmissible hearsay evidence in the sentencing process but not in reaching her verdict?

2. Having heard the parties, I refuse to grant a certificate as requested. The following are my brief reasons.

3. In the Judgment which was in Chinese, I held that certain words hand-written on the invoices of the related restaurant were hearsay and not admissible as evidence against the Appellant. At the trial before the magistrate, the parties allowed these words to remain on the invoices which were produced as exhibits because the invoices formed part of the business and/or accounting records of the restaurant. Although it is a ground of appeal raised for the Appellant that the magistrate relied on the hearsay to hold that the Appellant had planned to commit the offence and had planned to assist the restaurant to obtain a liquor licence and to convict the Appellant of the offence accordingly, I pointed out in the Judgment that the magistrate had throughout her Statement of Findings never used...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT