ATTORNEY GENERAL v. GEOFFREY WATSON
HTML content
PWL/56/87/C
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 56 OF 1987
(On appeal from the high Court of Justice
in its jurisdiction in Magistracy appeal No. 637 of 1986)
________________
| IN THE MATTER of Geoffrey WATSON, a Permanent Magistrate of Fanling Magistracy, Fanling, New Territories and IN THF MATTER of Magistracy Appeal No. 637 of 1986 and IN THE MATTER of an appeal from an application for Judicial; Review in a Non-Criminal Cause of Matter pursuant to Order 53 of the Rules of Supreme Court, Chapter 4, Laws of Hong Kong. |
________________
BETWEEN
| THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | Applicant | |
| and | ||
| GEOFFREY WATSON | Respondent |
________________
Coram: Hon. Cons, V.-P., Fuad and Clough, JJ.A.
Date of hearing: 1st July 1987
Date of delivery of judgment: 1st July, 1987
________________
J U D G M F N T
________________
Cons, V.-P. delivered the judgment of the Court:
1. This is an appeal from Mr. Geoffrey Watson, a Magistrate sitting in the Fanling Court, New Territories, against an order of Mr. Justice Macdougall made on 13th May this year which commanded the Magistrate "To amend the above case stated wherein the Attorney General is the appellant and NGAO Kai-suen is the respondent within 14 days". That order arose in connection with an appeal by way of case stated taken by the Attorney General in connection with the refusal of the Magistrate to forfeit some 30 television sets which, if we may use the phrase, were unsuccessfully smuggled into China.
2. There is no need to go further into the history of the litigation for the Crown now accepts that the order should not have been made. We cannot, as is well known, allow an appeal by consent, but we must say that on our own perusal of the papers and from what we have heard this morning, we think that should the appeal be allowed to continue, it must inevitably succeed for the reasons that the order itself was insufficiently precise, because the requirements of Order 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court had not been complied with, in particular that no prior leave had been obtained from the High Court and that in any event the Magistrate had not been given proper notice of the application. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the order made on 13th May set aside.
3. We would like to add that we are happy to hear from counsel that no problems are now expected with regard to the final form of the case stated.
(D. Cons) | (K.T. Fuad) | (P.G. Clough) |
F. Eddis, Q.C. and Ronald Tang (M/s Kwan & Kwan) for Respondent/Appellant
G.J. Lugar-Mawson and G.J.X. McCoy, Crown Counsel (Legal Department) for Applicant/Respondent