HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Miscellaneous Proceedings (Criminal)2014

HKSAR v. MBUGUA JAMES WAIGWA

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
93361-EN-2014-06-04

HKSAR v. MBUGUA JAMES WAIGWA

HTML content

FAMC No. 19 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 19 OF 2014 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM CACC NO. 188 OF 2009)

_____________________

Between:

 HKSARRespondent
 and
  MBUGUA JAMES WAIGWAApplicant

_____________________

Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Tang PJ and Mr Justice Fok PJ
Date of Hearing and Determination: 4 June 2014

____________________________

DETERMINATION

____________________________

Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ:

1.  This is the Determination of the Appeal Committee. 

2.  Application is made for leave to appeal on the basis that sufficiently important questions arise relating to the trial judge’s direction to the jury on the defence of duress regarding the immediacy of the threat and the opportunity to evade it.  Mr Ross seeks to suggest that a crucial difference exists between a direction requiring the alleged threat of death or serious bodily injury to be one threatened to be carried out “immediately or almost immediately” as opposed to one to be carried out “imminently”.

3.  We are not persuaded of the viability of the issue sought to be raised.  In our view, the Court of Appeal’s reasons for dismissing the appeal are unassailable[1] and the applicant’s case is not reasonably arguable.  The application must be dismissed.

  (R.A.V. Ribeiro) (Robert Tang) (Joseph Fok)
Permanent JudgePermanent JudgePermanent Judge

Mr Phillip Ross, instructed by Christine M. Koo & Ip and assigned by the Legal Aid Department for the applicant

Ms Catherine Ko, ADPP (Ag) of the Department of Justice for the Respondent 



[1] Yuen JA, Barnes and McWalters JJ, CACC 188/2009 (10 July 2013).