HKSAR v. CHAN SO NGOR

HCMA823/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.823 OF 2004

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 3757 OF 2003)

———————

BETWEEN

  HKSAR Respondent
  and  
  CHAN SO NGOR (陳素娥) Appellant

———————-

Before : Hon Pang J in Court

Date of Hearing : 23 September 2004

Date of Judgment : 23 September 2004

————————-

J U D G M E N T

————————-

1. This is an application by Madam Chan So Ngor for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal pursuant to section 33 of the HongKong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (“the Ordinance”).

2. The applicant was convicted in the magistracy on two charges of conspiracy to defraud. She was sentenced to a concurrent prisonterm of six months which was suspended for a period of three years. Her appeal against conviction and sentence was heard in theCourt of First Instance on 10 September 2004 and conviction were both dismissed on the same day. She now applies under section 33of the Ordinance for leave.

3. There are four pages of homemade grounds in support of the application and the applicant was invited to supplement to her groundsthis morning. Her grounds can be distilled into three broad categories. This first one being she never had any intention to defraudthe alleged victims of the charges. Secondly, the evidence presented in the magistracy did not support her conviction. These twopoints have been dealt with in the appeal against conviction. The criticism on the court’s approach on the evidence and on theissue of credibility of witnesses is peculiar to every case. Insofar as they do not involve a point of law which is of great generalimportance, the application cannot succeed under this head.

4. In the third that the applicant complains that she did not receive a fair trial in the sense that grave injustice had been done toher in the course of the proceedings.

5. In her submission this morning, she levelled criticism at the Duty Lawyer Scheme generally. She also saw fit to criticise the officersof the Duty Lawyer Scheme in handling her case and on the competence of the lawyer assigned to handle her case. As they can looselybe grouped under the head that grave injustice has been done to her, the proper forum is for her to go before the leave committeeof the Court of Final Appeal to pursue her application.

6. For the reasons given, the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is dismissed.

  ( K.K. Pang )
  Judge of the Court of First Instance
  High Court

Mr Jackson Poon, SGC of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent

Appellant in person