HKSAR v. HO KIN SANG

CACC000449A/1999

CACC 449/1999

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)

______________

BETWEEN
HKSAR Respondent
AND
HO KIN-SANG Applicant

______________

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:

“The Court of Appeal is not entitled to substitute verdicts where inconsistent verdicts are brought in by a jury when the Court canonly guess which of the verdicts truly reflects the findings of facts by the jury.”

3. The question is in two parts.

` As to the first part, the Court of Appeal is empowered to substitute a conviction for another offence when it finds that a convictioncannot stand and that the combined effect of the provisions of sections 51, 83 and 83A is satisfied.

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.

(M. Stuart-Moore) (Simon Mayo) (Michael Wong)
Vice-President Vice-President Justice of Appeal

Representation:

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.