HKSAR v. YAU CHIU MING

HCMA300/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 300 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM KCCC 2759 OF 2001)

———————

BETWEEN

  HKSAR Respondent
  and  
  YAU CHIU MING (尤昭銘) Applicant

———————-

Before : Hon McMahon J in Court

Date of Hearing : 16 December 2005

Date of Ruling : 16 December 2005

———————

R U L I N G

———————

1. The applicant was represented before me on 14 May 2002 on his appeal against his conviction for an offence of making persistent telephonecalls pursuant to section 20(c) of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap. 228. I allowed the appeal on the basis of a drafting error in the charge presented against him and I ordered a retrial. Hewas convicted again at that retrial, appealed again and that appeal was dismissed.

2. On 15 November 2005, some three years after the original appeal and subsequent proceedings had concluded, the applicant returnedbefore me to seek his costs of that original appeal. I declined to do so for reasons set out in my written judgment of the samedate.

3. He now applies for a certificate pursuant to section 32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance to the effect that the refusalto allow his application for costs raises a point of great and general importance.

4. In my view, it does not. The application for costs following the applicant’s successful appeal was made well after the event andthe delay in making that application was never satisfactorily explained. Criminal proceedings must come to an end. Parties cannotreturn at will to a court years after the event to deal with ancillary matters unless they can show good reason why they have doneso. The applicant in this case has failed to do so.

5. In my view, the discretionary refusal to entertain an application for costs made three years after the event is not a matter whichraises any issue of great and general importance. I decline to certify the point.

  (M.A. McMahon)
Judge of the Court of First Instance,
High Court

Mr Frederick Chung, SGC, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent

The Applicant, in person