Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Pun Ganga Chandra And Others v Hksar

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date21 December 2001
CourtCourt of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgement NumberFAMC31/2001
Subject MatterMiscellaneous Proceedings (Criminal)
FAMC000031/2001 PUN GANGA CHANDRA AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

FAMC000031/2001

FAMC No. 31 of 2001

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 31 OF 2001 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM CACC NO. 309 OF 1999)

_____________________

Between:
PUN GANGA CHANDRA Applicants
GURUNG SANTOSH
GURUNG RAJENDRA BIKRAM
AND
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION Respondent

_____________________

Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ

Date of Hearing: 21 December 2001

Date of Determination: 21 December 2001

________________________________

DETERMINATION

________________________________

Mr Justice Bokhary PJ:

1. In refusing to certify the involvement of any point of law of great and general importance arising out of how the judge directed the jury on joint enterprise, the Court of Appeal took the view that none of the points advanced in that regard arose on the facts.

2. Is there any real danger that the jury convicted any of the applicants on the basis that he was unaware prior to the fatal stab that it would be administered? In answering this question, we have regard to the evidence in the case, how the case was run at the trial and the summing-up as a whole. Doing so, we have come to the firm conclusion that there was no such danger.

3. The determination which is being delivered at the moment relates only to the joint enterprise. As to that we refuse a certificate. In regard to joint enterprise, there is no basis for an appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, whether on any point of law or on the ground of substantial and grave injustice. As to joint enterprise therefore we refuse leave to appeal.

[The Appeal Committee then heard counsel on
whether the application ought to be adjourned
in so far as the constitutional points were concerned.]

4. In so far as a certificate is sought on the constitutional points and leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is sought on those points, we think that the sensible course is to adjourn the application with liberty to restore it after the Court of Final Appeal's decision is known in Lau Cheong & Lau Wong v. HKSAR, FACC No. 6 of 2001 which to be heard in April next year. This part of the...

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