HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Miscellaneous Proceedings (Criminal)2005

LI WING KEI v. HKSAR

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
45328-EN-2005-05-31

LI WING KEI v. HKSAR

HTML content

FAMC No. 39 of 2005

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION 

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 39 OF 2005 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM
HCCC NO. 134 OF 2004)

_____________________

Between:

LI WING KEIApplicant
and
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGIONRespondent

_____________________

 

Appeal Committee: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ

Date of Hearing: 31 May 2005

Date of Determination: 31 May 2005

 

______________________________

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

______________________________

 

Chief Justice Li :

1.  For the purposes of this application for leave to appeal, we assume without deciding that the judge’s decision to revoke bail is a final decision within s.31(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap.484.  The applicant therefore has to show that he has an arguable case that substantial and grave injustice has been done.

2.  After his decision to revoke bail in the morning of 5 May 2005, the judge was asked to review his decision on two occasions, in the afternoon of 5 May and again on 12 May.  Although the judge did not invite submissions when he made his initial decision, the judge heard submissions on the subsequent occasions.  On both occasions, he decided not to change his earlier decision.

3.  The question of bail depends on the circumstances of each case.  The matter was argued before the judge.  There is no question of the discretion being exercised afresh.

4.  No arguable case has been established that the judge’s decision constitutes a substantial and grave injustice.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused.

(Andrew Li)
Chief Justice
(Kemal Bokhary)
Permanent Judge
(R A V Ribeiro)
Permanent Judge

 

Mr Michael Blanchflower, SC and Mr Eric Cheung (instructed by Messrs David Lo & Partners) for the applicant

Mr Michael Poll (instructed by the Department of Justice) for the respondent