HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Miscellaneous Proceedings (Criminal)2006

CHAN NAI MING 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

Files (2)

55576-EN-2007-01-03

HKSAR v. CHAN NAI MING

HTML content

FAMC No. 61 of 2006

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION 

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 61 OF 2006 (Criminal)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM
HCMA No. 1221 of 2005)

_______________________

Between

HKSARRespondent
and
CHAN NAI MINGApplicant

_______________________

Coram:  Mr Justice Ribeiro in Chambers

Date of Hearing:  3 January 2007

Date of Decision :  3 January 2007

_______________________ 

D E C I S I O N

_______________________ 

 

Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ:

1.  On 12 December 2006 the applicant began serving his concurrent sentences of three months’ imprisonment after conviction for certain copyright offences.  He has since lodged an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal which the Appeal Committee is to hear on 7 February 2007. 

2.  In the summons presently before me, the applicant seeks bail pending appeal.  As is accepted, the application properly relates to the period pending the hearing of the leave application and I will treat it as such.

3.  The applicant has now been in custody for more than three weeks.  If he is not given bail, he will, by the time the leave application is heard, have served almost two-thirds of his sentence.  He seeks bail to prevent the leave application from being rendered largely nugatory, if successful.

4.  The government opposes bail on the ground that there is no reasonable prospect of leave to appeal being granted, first, because the points raised are said not to be points of law of great and general importance; and secondly, because they are said to be not reasonably arguable.  

5.  Those may or may not be good grounds for refusing leave.  I express no opinion at this stage since the question of whether leave should be granted is a matter for the Appeal Committee.  It is undesirable for a single permanent judge to take a stand on these questions in the context of a bail application unless the exigencies of the situation require such a course: see Sher Ali Khan v HKSAR (FAMC 4/2006, 2.2.06).

6.  In the present case, there is no reason why the decision on leave to appeal should not be left to be taken in the usual way by the Appeal Committee while preserving the applicant’s position.  I will accordingly order that the applicant be admitted to bail pending determination of his application for leave to appeal on conditions to which he consents, namely, that:

(a)     he shall deposit the sum of HK$5,000.00 with the court for the purpose of securing his surrender to custody;

(b)     he shall not leave or attempt to leave Hong Kong without permission of the Court which should be sought by application to a single permanent judge;

(c)     he shall reside at the address identified by his counsel at the hearing; and,

(d)     he shall not change his address without permission of the Court, again to be sought by application to a single permanent judge.

(R A V Ribeiro)
Permanent Judge

Mr Kevin K H Pun (instructed by Messrs Chak & Associates) for the applicant

Mr Hayson K S Tse (of the Department of Justice) for the respondent

 

55985-EN-2006-02-07

CHAN NAI MING v. HKSAR

HTML content

FAMC No. 61 of 2006

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 61 OF 2006 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM HCMA NO. 1221 OF 2005)

_____________________

Between:

 CHAN NAI MINGApplicant
 and 
 HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGIONRespondent

_____________________

 

Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ

Date of Hearing: 7 February 2007

Date of Determination: 7 February 2007

____________________________

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

____________________________

Mr Justice Bokhary PJ:

1. We certify the two points of law set out in the Application for Leave to Appeal, and grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal for those points to be pursued.  The hearing of the appeal will commence on Wednesday 9 May this year.  An extra day will be reserved.  The extra day will be notified to the parties in due course.  It will be either the following day, namely Thursday the 10th, or the day after, namely Friday the 11th.  Which one it will be will depend on whether another appeal which has been fixed for the 10th can be shifted to the 11th. 

Mr Justice Bokhary PJ  :  I suppose, Mr Pun, that you ask for bail pending appeal on the same terms as those granted pending this leave application?

Mr Pun :  Yes.

Mr Justice Bokhary PJ : Do you oppose that, Mr Turnbull?

Mr Turnbull  : No.

Mr Justice Bokhary PJ  : We grant bail pending appeal on the same terms as those granted pending this leave application.

 

 

(Kemal Bokhary)
Permanent Judge
(Patrick Chan)
Permanent Judge
(RAV Ribeiro)
Permanent Judge

 

Mr Kevin K H Pun (instructed by Messrs Chak & Associates) for the applicant

Mr R G Turnbull and Mr Hayson K S Tse (of the Department of Justice) for the respondent