WONG KAM CHEUNG v. HKSAR

FAMV000013/2000

(Not for Circulation)
FAMV No. 13 of 2000

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 13 OF 2000 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM CACV No. 310 OF 1999)

_____________________

Between:
	WONG KAM CHEUNG	Applicant
	AND
	HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION	Respondent

____________________

Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Litton PJ, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ and Mr Justice Silke NPJ

Date of Hearing: 22 June 2000

Date of Determination: 22 June 2000

 

____________________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

____________________________

 

Mr Justice Litton PJ :

1. This application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal arises from a criminal prosecution brought against the applicant in March 1994 when he was charged with two conspiracies to defraud. He was convicted on both charges in the District Court but those convictions were quashed on appeal : In relation to the first charge counsel for the prosecution conceded in the Court of Appeal that he could not seek to uphold that conviction, and in relation to the second charge counsel had little to say.

2. Following his acquittal, the applicant brought an action in the High Court against the government for damages. He was acting in person (as he has done throughout). In essence his alleged causes of action were (1) malicious prosecution and (2) wrongful failure by the Director of Legal Aid to give him legal aid in order to pursue his suit for damages. The statement of claim was struck out by the Master and the action was dismissed, on the ground that no cause of action was shown. This order was upheld by Chung J, whose judgment was in turn upheld by the Court of Appeal. As can be seen, three levels of the judicial hierarchy have reviewed this matter and they all came to the view that the statement of claim disclosed no cause of action.

3. Nothing disclosed in the material before us or said by the applicant persuades us that the matter should go to the Court of Final Appeal.

4. This application is accordingly dismissed.

 

 

 

Representation:

Mr Wong Kam Cheung, the Applicant, in person

Mr Raymond C W Tam SGC (of Department of Justice) for the Respondent