ZOU YISHANG v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION
HTML content
FAMC No. 21 of 2007
IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 21 OF 2007 (CRIMINAL)
(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM HCMA NO. 859 OF 2005)
_____________________
Between:
| ZOU YISHANG | Applicant | |
| - and - | ||
| SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION | Respondent |
_____________________
Appeal Committee : Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
Date of Hearing : 4 June 2007
Date of Determination : 4 June 2007
______________________
D E T E R M I N A T I O N
______________________
Mr Justice Bokhary PJ :
1. At one stage the applicant was legally represented. He now appears in person, and has expressly abandoned the grounds put forward by his former lawyers except insofar as they are repeated in his letter of 29 May 2007 which has been placed before us. In oral argument he expanded upon the matters referred to in that letter. Are any of those matters capable of forming a ground of appeal? Only one matter arises for consideration in this connection. It is the way in which the issue of intention was decided. The concept of virtually certain consequences derived from the cases of Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 1025 and Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82 was referred to by the courts below. And the fact that those were murder cases appears to have upset the applicant. We cannot help it if he is upset. All we can say is that it is not unusual for cases involving one type of offence to be cited in cases involving another type of offence.
2. Is it reasonably arguable that the courts below treated Nedrick and Woollin as having decided more than those cases really decided? The applicant said at one stage that it appeared to him that he had been convicted of market manipulation because of some murders committed in foreign jurisdictions. If that is his perception, that is unfortunate, but we cannot help it. On the question of whether the courts below had treated Nedrick and Woollin as having decided more than those cases really decided, the answer is undoubtedly “No”. The answer to the question whether there is any reasonable ground for taking this case to the Court of Final Appeal is, therefore, also undoubtedly “No”. If the applicant is, as he suggested, left with a less favourable view of the legal system in Hong Kong than he previously held, that is a matter for him. Our duty is to see if there is any reasonable ground for taking this case to the Court of Final Appeal – to let the matter proceed if there is but stop it now otherwise. There is no such ground and, accordingly, leave to the appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused.
| (Kemal Bokhary) Permanent Judge | (Patrick Chan) Permanent Judge | (RAV Ribeiro) Permanent Judge |
Mr Zou Yishang, the applicant, acting in person (present)
Mr Adrian Bell (instructed by Securities and Futures Commission) for the respondent