HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal2002

HKSAR v. LAU SUI ON

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
3442-EN-2003-06-03

HKSAR v. LAU SUI ON

HTML content

CACC000356/2002

CACC 356/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 356 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 48 OF 2002)

______________

BETWEEN
HKSARRespondent
AND
LAU SUI ONApplicant

______________

Coram: Hon Stuart-Moore VP, Yeung and Ma JJA in Court

Date of Hearing: 3 June 2003

Date of Judgment: 3 June 2003

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Ma JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. There are two applications before the court:- an application for leave to appeal against conviction and an application for leave to appeal against sentence out of time.

2. Written grounds of appeal were set out in the various notices of application. In relation to the application for leave to appeal against conviction, nothing in the written grounds (which have not been supplemented this morning) persuades us that there exists any arguable case for leave to be given. In relation to the application for leave to appeal against sentence out of time, we first see no reason for extending time. The explanation given does not justify an extension. Secondly, and more importantly, there are no merits in the application itself.

3. In these circumstances, we dismiss both applications.

(M. Stuart-Moore)(W. Yeung)(Geoffrey Ma)
Vice-PresidentJustice of AppealJustice of Appeal

Representation:

Mr Vincent Wong, SGC, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent.

Applicant in person.