IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 299 OF 2014
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 1022 OF 2012)
J U D G M E N T
Hon Lunn VP (giving the Judgment of the Court) :
1. On 19 August 2016 we refused the 2nd appellant’s application that we certify that a point of law of great and general importance,as identified in Question 2 of the questions posed for the Court, was involved in the decision of the Court on 26 May 2016, allowingher appeal against conviction. We gave directions in respect of the time that any application for and opposition to an order forcosts of that application be made.
2. On 19 August 2016 the respondent asked for an order for the costs of and occasioned by the application on the ground that the applicationwas “entirely unmeritorious”. The time period which the court prescribed for the filing of any opposition to the application haspassed. The Court has not received any indication of opposition to the application.
3. As we said, in refusing to certify the question posed, the issue that arose was the “merely the application of trite law to thefacts.”
4. In those circumstances, we are satisfied, and we so order, that the respondent is to have the costs of and occasioned by the application.
Mr William Tam SC, DDPP, of Department of Justice, for the respondent