IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 449 OF 1999
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 432 OF 1998)
Coram: Hon Stuart-Moore VP, Mayo VP and Wong JA
Date of Hearing: 14 July 2000
Date of Judgment: 14 July 2000
D E C I S I O N
Stuart-Moore VP (giving the decision of the Court):
1. This is an application under section 32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, for a certificate that a point of lawof great and general importance is involved in the judgment of this court given on 1 June 2000, the reasons for which were handeddown on 19 June 2000.
2. Mr McNamara, on behalf of the Applicant, has posed the following question on which he has invited the court to grant a certificate:
3. The question is in two parts.
4. As to the second part, the court did not have to engage in guesswork or speculation. It was readily apparent what the jury’s findingshad been although why they returned inconsistent verdicts was less than clear. No misdirection as to count 1 (manslaughter) has everbeen suggested and, standing alone, there was nothing which occurred in the trial to upset this conviction. Plainly, the inconsistencylay in count 2 and the substitution of unlawful wounding for wounding with intent corrected this glaring error.
5. We can say that we can find no point of great and general importance to be involved in the judgment given by this court and, accordingly,we decline to certify the point which has been raised.
Mr D.G. Saw, SC, DDPP and Mr Gary Lam, GC, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent.
Mr John McNamara, instructed by Legal Aid Department, for the Applicant.