CACC 514/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

criminal APPEAL NO. 514 OF 2006

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC No. 543 of 2006 )

_______________________

BETWEEN

______________________

Before: Hon Cheung JA, Yeung JA and Beeson J in Court

Date of Hearing: 16 July 2008

Date of Judgment: 16 July 2008

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

Hon Yeung JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 20 May 2008, this court dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

2. The applicant now applies to us for a certificate under section 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

3. The two points of law, which are said to be of great and general importance, are as follows:

(1) Whether evidence solely from the victim named in the charge sheet relating to other criminal act/conduct committed by the accusedagainst him but not tried is admissible in law as similar fact evidence?

(2) Whether the victim’s character was put in issue by the defence where it was put in cross-examination that the victim might be injuredby dubious people had had mixed with?

4. The admission of relevant evidence as similar fact evidence and the question of whether the defence had put the character of thewitness in issue to justify the admission of evidence of his good character are facts-sensitive issues, and very often involve anelement of discretion, as established by leading authorities, including decisions of the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong.

5. We had also made clear in our judgment that the evidence relating to the other assaults was relevant to other issues raised by thedefence, namely why the victim put up with the applicant’s conduct and his extensive injuries, which could not be explained simplyby the 14 charges in question. (See paragraphs 65, 66, 86, 95 and 96 of the judgment)

6. We fail, in the circumstances, to see how it could be appropriate to grant a certificate under section 32(2) of the Court of FinalAppeal Ordinance. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

Ms Mary Sin, SADPP of the Department of Justice for the Respondent.

Mr Joseph W Y Tse, SC and Mr Eddie S Chan instructed by Messrs Wong Hui & Co for the Applicant.

Application by the Applicant for leave to appeal refused. Please see FAMC45/2008 dated 26 September 2008