HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal2001

HKSAR v. WONG LAI SHING

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
43961-EN-2004-12-17

HKSAR v. WONG LAI SHING

HTML content

CACC 183/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

criminal APPEAL NO.183 OF 2001

(ON APPEAL FROM hccc 112 of 2000)

____________________

BETWEEN

HKSARRespondent
and
WONG LAI SHING (黃禮勝)Applicant

____________________

 

Before: Hon Stuart-Moore VP and Lugar-Mawson J

Date of Hearing:  17 December 2004

Date of Judgment: 17 December 2004

 

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

 

Stuart-Moore, VP (giving the judgment of the Court):

1.  The applicant was convicted on 4 May 2001, following a trial before Deputy Judge McMahon (as he then was) and a jury, on two counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.  On 8 May 2001, the applicant received a total sentence of eight years’ imprisonment against which he sought leave to appeal out of time but, on 20 September 2001, that application was abandoned.

2.  The matter now comes before us as an application to treat that abandonment as a nullity.  There are, however, no grounds for so doing.  It is plain from the applicant’s affirmation, dated 19 July 2004, that his mind went with the act of abandonment and that it was the applicant’s assessment of the merits of his application which led him to abandon (see: HKSAR v Lai Siu-cheung, CACC 487/2002 (unreported)).  We should add, although we are not concerned in this application with the merits, that the applicant may consider himself fortunate not to have been sentenced to a lengthier term for what, on any view, were crimes of the utmost gravity.

3.  This application is dismissed.

(M. Stuart-Moore)(G.J. Lugar-Mawson)
Vice-PresidentJudge of the Court of First Instance

Ms Rosaline S.Y. Leung, SGC, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent.

Applicant in person.