Li Tak Ming v Secretary For Justice

Court:Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:FAMV18/1998
Judgment Date:23 Nov 1998
FAMV000018/1998 LI TAK MING v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

FAMV000018/1998

FAMV No. 18 of 1998

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 18 OF 1998 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM CACV No. 78 OF 1998)

_____________________

Between:
LI TAK MING Applicant
AND
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE Respondent

_____________________

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

Date of Hearing: 23 November 1998

Date of Determination: 23 November 1998

_____________________________

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

_____________________________

Mr Justice Bokhary PJ:

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from a judgment given by the Court of Appeal on 10 June 1998. By that judgment the Court of Appeal affirmed a refusal by Sears J, on 19 March 1998, to grant the applicant leave to apply for judicial review of a number of decisions. Of these the ultimate one was a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Board on 13 November 1997. By that decision the Board affirmed the Commissioner of Police's refusal to renew the applicant's arms licence.

2. The applicant had sought the renewal of his arms licence, such licences requiring renewal annually. Whether to renew such a licence or to refuse to do so is the statutory duty of the Commissioner, placed upon him s. 32 of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap.238. This section provides that:

"Upon application to him in the prescribed form, and payment of the prescribed fee, the Commissioner may renew [an arms] licence for such period as he thinks fit, or may refuse to renew the licence."

3. Reg. 9 of the Firearms and Ammunition Regulations provides that:

"An application for the renewal of [an arms] licence under section 32 of the Ordinance shall be made in such form and contain such particulars as the Commissioner may from time to time determine."

4. The applicant took exception to the form which the Commissioner required him to complete on this occasion. His contention came essentially to this. That form is not a prescribed form within the ambit of the relevant legislation. Put another way, it requires information which, upon the true construction of such legislation, the Commissioner is not entitled to seek by way of such form as he may...

To continue reading

Request your trial