SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAU KAM SHUI AND ANOTHER
HTML content
CACV 192/2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 192 OF 2008
(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO. 476 OF 2008)
----------------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE | Respondent | |
| and | ||
| LAU KAM SHUI | 1st Appellant | |
| LAU PUI LING | 2nd Appellant |
----------------------
Before : Hon Stock JA in Chambers
Date of Hearing : 25 February 2009
Date of Decision : 25 February 2009
----------------------
D E C I S I O N
----------------------
Introduction
1. This is an application for an adjournment of an appeal due to be heard on 6 March 2009 set down as long ago as July 2008.
2. The basis for the application is that the appeal may be rendered academic in case a case stated against the acquittal in January 2009 were to fail.
3. The appeal itself is against an order of Deputy Judge Longley in the middle of 2008 and falls within a narrow compass and concerns a restraint and charging order made under the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance. The prosecution contends that there have been many extensions of time for compliance and in some particular regards non-compliance.
4. The history of this case has all the hallmarks in my judgment of the defendants playing matters long. The fact is that the criminal proceedings remain extant. It will be a considerable time before the case stated is heard and determined; and there has been a failure to prepare the appeal which I perceive to be a part of the history of playing things long.
5. The appeal may in the event turn out to be academic in the sense only that if the case stated is unsuccessful, no confiscation order would follow and the orders for disclosure would, to that extent, be academic. That is a point that could always be made and if carried to its logical conclusion would dictate that orders for disclosure under OSCO should never be made until after the determination of a trial.
6. I think that this appeal should go ahead as planned. And the application for adjournment is refused. There will be an order in favour of the respondent for the costs of this application, to be taxed if not agreed.
| (Frank Stock) | |
| Justice of Appeal |
Mr Gerard McCoy, SC instructed by Department of Justice and Mr Graham Goodman, SPP, of Department of Justice for the Respondent
Mr CY Li instructed by Messrs Tso Au Yim & Yeung for the 1st and 2nd Appellants