HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1999

HKSAR v. YANG MIN

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR11/1997HKSAR v. YIP CHI TUNG
  • CAAR1/1998HKSAR v. LING VERONICA
  • CAAR12/1996HKSAR v. WONG KWONG YICK
  • CAAR6/1998HKSAR v. LAU SHIU KONG AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR6/2012HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK CHI
  • CAAR9/2001HKSAR v. WONG TO LEUNG
  • CACC100/1997HKSAR v. YU HON CHUN
  • CACC100/1999HKSAR v. LAM CHI KIN
  • CACC100/2000HKSAR v. SHING KUEN KIN
  • CACC100/2001HKSAR v. OU YANG MING CHYUAN
  • CACC100/2002HKSAR v. CHAN LAI SING AND ANOTHER
  • CACC100/2003HKSAR v. CHENG CHONG SHING
  • CACC100/2022HKSAR v. LIMBU PRASHANT
  • CACC101/1997HKSAR v. YIU KENNETH LIK KIN
  • CACC101/2001HKSAR v. LEUNG KWAI PING
  • CACC101/2021HKSAR v. WONG CHI FUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/1997HKSAR v. MAN KAM SHING
  • CACC10/1998HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN TAK
  • CACC10/2001HKSAR v. TAM KWAI KEUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/2002HKSAR v. WONG WAN SHAN

Files (2)

20343-EN-2000-01-12

HKSAR v. YANG MIN

HTML content

HCMA000555A/1999

HCMA555/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.555 OF 1999

(ON APPEAL FROM WSCC 2730 OF 1999)

--------------------

BETWEEN
HKSARRespondent
AND
YANG MINAppellant

--------------------

Coram: Hon Nguyen J in Court

Date of Hearing: 12 January 2000

Date of Judgment: 12 January 2000

 

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

 

1. This is an application by the appellant under s.32 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap.484. The application is for a certificate under s.32(2) that a point of law of great and general importance is involved in my previous decision to dismiss his appeal against the decision of the magistrate. Alternatively the appellant seeks to show that substantial and grave injustice has been done in this matter. In so far as substantial and grave injustice is concerned, the appellant will need to make application directly to the Court of Final Appeal and satisfy that Court that there has been substantial and grave injustice. In so far as this Court is concerned, I can only certify if I am of that view that there is a point of law of great and general importance.

2. In my view, in this particular matter, there is no point of law of great and general importance which is involved in my decision. I therefore decline to grant the certificate sought by the appellant. The appellant is advised that if he wishes, he may apply directly to the Court of Final Appeal for leave to appeal.

 

 

(Peter Nguyen)
Judge of the Court of First Instance,
High Court

 

Representation:

Mr William Lam, SADPP of Department of Justice, for HKSAR

Appellant in person, present

16864-CT-1999-12-17

香港特別行政區政府 訴 楊敏

HTML content

HCMA000555/1999

HCMA555/1999

香港特別行政區

高等法院

原訟法庭

上訴司法法管轄權

判罪上訴

裁判法院上訴案件1999年第555號

(原西區裁判法院案件1999年第2730號)

---------------------------

與訟人香港特別行政區政府
訴
上訴人楊敏

---------------------------

審理法官:高等法院原訟法庭法官阮雲道

聆訊日期:1999年12月17日

宣判日期:1999年12月17日

 

-----------

判案書

-----------

 

1. 上訴人被控向根據或為執行入境條例第III部而合法行事的入境事務主任作出虛假申述,違反香港法例第115章《入境條例》第42(1)(a)條。案情透露上訴人於1997年1月7日遞交申請延期逗留申請書時,所一并遞交的信件,即證物P2,由東江機械製模廠的 翁健祥先生所簽署的信件。信中清楚說明上訴人當時受僱於該公司而該公司亦希望繼續聘用上訴人。

2.入境事務處被上訴人所提供的申請書和信件誤導,以為當日,即1997年1月7日,上訴人仍在東江機械製模廠工作。及後當入境事務處為証實事件的虛實而接見上訴人時,問及以上問題,上訴人對有關入境事務處官員說出他由1991年6月至1995年8月受僱於東江機械製模廠,但後來因該公司遷回大陸發展,所以上訴人沒有繼續在該公司工作。而上訴人於1995年11月開始,其實任職 ASM公司。

3. 根據上訴人所說,明顯地在1997年1月7日,上訴人已終止了東江機械製模廠的工作合約,而轉到ASM公司工作。所以當時上訴人對入境事務處表示他仍然受僱於東江機械製模廠是虛假的,並不真實,而裁判官裁定他有罪絕對適當。因此,上訴駁回。

 

 

(阮雲道)
高等法院原訟法庭法官

 

與訟人:律政署高級政府律師譚思樂代表香港特別行政區

上訴人:楊敏,無律師代表,親身出席