R. v. LUI MAN KIT

CACC000262/1994

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No. 262
(Criminal)

___________

 

BETWEEN
	THE QUEEN
	AND
	LUI MAN KIT

___________

 

Coram: Hon Litton, V.-P., Bokhary and Mayo, JJ.A.

Date of hearing: 18 May 1995

Date of judgment: 18 May 1995

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Litton, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. This applicant Lui Man-kit was convicted on 29 April 1994 on one charge of trafficking in heroin. The amount involved was 567.97 grammes of a mixture containing 202.57 grammes of salts of esters of morphine.

2. On 13 May 1994 he was sentenced in the High Court to eight years' imprisonment. On 26 May 1994 his solicitors lodged a notice of application for leave to appeal against that sentence. On 5 October his solicitors on his behalf lodged a notice of abandonment of his application to appeal. The notice is expressed in the English language, signed by the applicant in Chinese and there is endorsed on the notice a statement to the effect that Lau Cheuk-hung, Clerk to his solicitors, had interpreted the contents of that notice to the applicant. The applicant then changed solicitors. On 14 February 1995 the applicant made an affirmation which was lodged by his new solicitors asking this court to treat his abandonment of the appeal as a nullity. There was a slight mistake in that affirmation. He referred to his conviction as having taken place on 28 April 1994 when in effect it was one day later. That affirmation sets out no grounds whatever for this court to treat the abandonment as a nullity.

3. Before this court now the applicant's counsel asks us to adopt the view that the applicant had never in fact sought leave to appeal against his conviction; that we should disregard all previous acts as invalid because of the error in the date; that the applicant had never applied for leave to appeal against the conviction which took place on 29 April 1994. We do not accept that submission. The position therefore as it stands is that the application for leave to appeal had been effectively abandoned. No grounds have been put forward for treating that abandonment as a nullity. It follows that there is nothing which this court now can entertain.

Representation:

Mr John Reading, SACP (Crown Prosecutor) for Crown/Respondent

Mr Paul Tong (M/S Leung, Chan & Pang) for Defendant/Applicant