LUK SIU-KEUNG v. THE QUEEN

BETWEEN

Coram: Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P.

_____________________

REASONS FOR ORDER

_____________________

Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P.:

1. These applications, for (i) leave to appeal against convictions for murder and robbery and (ii) bail pending appeal, were lodged on 15th June 1982. The application for leave was supported by no grounds of appeal whatsoever and the notice was ineffective. It should have been returned to the Applicant forthwith. Not only was it not so returned but the application for bail was not immediately placed before a judge, as it should have been, and has remained unconsidered for nearly a year and a half. Had it been placed before a judge, it could not have succeeded in the absence of an effective notice of appeal, but the defect in the notice would then have become apparent. In the event the papers have lain in the Registry and no step has been taken in the proceedings until now. I sincerely hope that nothing of the sort will ever happen again.

2. If the notice had been returned at the proper time, the Applicant might have lodged an effective notice within the time allowed. In so far as he desired to appeal against his conviction for murder, it has long been too late, for there is no power to extend the time within which the application must be made: s. 83Q (4) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance. He could seek an extension of time for leave to appeal against his conviction for robbery, but it is doubtful whether any useful purpose would be served by doing so. That question is now of academic interest only, because I am informed that His Excellency the Governor has made a reference under s.83P (1) (a), and the whole case will be considered by the Court of Appeal.

3. Accordingly it only remains for me to order that these applications be set down for hearing on the same day as the new appeal, so that they may be formally dismissed.

21st November 1983.