|
CACV 172/2010, CACV 173/2010, CACV 174/2010, CACV 172/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 172 OF 2010 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 16 OF 2007) ________________________ BETWEEN ________________________ AND CACV 173/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 173 OF 2010 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 17 OF 2007) ________________________ BETWEEN ________________________ AND CACV 174/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 174 OF 2010 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 18 OF 2007) ________________________ BETWEEN ________________________ AND CACV 175/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2010 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 19 OF 2007) ________________________ BETWEEN ________________________ (Heard Together) Before: Hon Kwan, Fok JJA and Reyes J in Court Date of Hearing: 7 September 2012 Date of Judgment: 7 September 2012
________________________ J U D G M E N T ________________________
Hon Kwan JA (giving the judgment of the Court): 1. On 8 May 2012, we gave judgment dismissing four appeals for the reasons given in the judgment of Fok JA. The appellants seek leaveto appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal, pursuant to section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, on the ground that the questions involved in the intended appeal are ones which, by reason of their great or public importance,or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision. 2. Five questions were formulated in each of the Notices of Motion. I do not propose to set them out. They correspond to issues 1,2, 3, 5 and 6 as set out in paragraphs 32 to 36 of the judgment of Fok JA. The reasons for deciding each of these issues againstthe appellants appear in paragraphs 37 to 117 of the judgment. 3. Mr McCoy, SC submitted that the five questions raised are of great or public importance, as the appeal is concerned with the appellants’challenge to the propriety of the application for and the issue and execution of search warrants pursuant to the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance, Cap 525. Even if the questions as framed might be of great or public importance, I am not satisfied on the merits that there arereasonable prospects of success in any of the grounds advanced in respect of the five questions. 4. The only new legal argument of Mr McCoy is his reliance on the New Zealand case of Dotcom v AG [2012] NZHC 1494, which was decided after we handed down our judgment. But as submitted by Mr Grossman, SC, this case does not help the appellants. 5. This is not an appropriate case to grant leave to appeal on the ground that the questions involved are of great general or publicimportance. Nor is there any exceptional reason why leave should be granted on the “or otherwise” limb. I would dismiss eachof the Notices of Motion with costs to the respondents.
Mr Gerard McCoy SC and Mr Steven Kwan, instructed by Haldanes, for the Applicants/Appellants Mr Clive Grossman SC and Mr Wayne Walsh, instructed by the Department of Justice, for the Respondents/Respondents
|