香港特別行政區 訴 黎明偉
The applicant failed to attend the hearing and the grounds advanced did not raise questions of law of great and general importance as required by statute; therefore the court refused to grant a certificate to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismissed the appeal for non-attendance.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 香港特別行政區 訴 黎明偉
- Parties
- Respondent: 香港特別行政區; Applicant: 黎明偉
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 16 May 2013
- Case Number
- HCMA254/2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Certificate to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal; Appeal Dismissed for Non Attendance
- Outcome
- application for certificate refused; appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Dismissal for Non Attendance, Adjournment Requests, Medical Incapacity, Delay and Abuse of Process, Allegations of Collusion
- Source Language
- ch
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
香港特別行政區
Respondent
黎明偉
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Certificate to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal; Appeal Dismissed for Non Attendance
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's non-attendance and alleged illness justified adjournment and prevented dismissal
- 2 Whether the grounds raised a point of law of great and general importance entitling a certificate to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
- 3 Whether the applicant's allegations against trial court, prosecution and police amounted to matters of law warranting certification
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to attend the hearing and the grounds advanced did not raise questions of law of great and general importance as required by statute; therefore the court refused to grant a certificate to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismissed the appeal for non-attendance.
Court Disposition
application for certificate refused; appeal dismissed
Orders
- Application for certificate to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused.
- Appeal dismissed for non-attendance and persistent delay.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
HCMA254/2011 香港特別行政區 高等法院原訟法庭 刑事上訴司法管轄權 申請終審法院上訴許可證明書 案件編號：裁判法院上訴案件2011年第254號 (原荃灣裁判法院案件2010年第863號) ---------------------------- 香港特別行政區 訴 申請人 黎明偉 ---------------------------- 主審法官：高等法院原訟法庭法官湯寶臣 聆訊日期：2013年5月2日 裁決日期：2013年5月2日 判案理由書日期：2013年5月16日 判案理由書 申請人經審訊後被裁判法院裁定一項「猥褻侵犯」罪罪名成立。申請人不服定罪，向原訟庭提出上訴。 申請人沒有依時出席2013年3月15日的上訴聆訊。有鑑於申請人一直以來的拖延行為，本席決定撤銷上訴；但在作出這決定前，本席亦已考慮過裁斷陳述書內容及判刑理由。 申請人後來要求上訴至終審法院。跟據法例，原訟庭發出證明書的基礎是案件涉及具有重大及廣泛重要性的法律觀點。申請人在其動議通知書裡所提出的議題如下： 「(1) ……法官不理我的所有押後証據及提示要盡快處理此個案。但我健康嚴重不配合及每日不能日間起床，不能做到中規中矩完成此案，我多番提証明及要求，法庭不理我。又律師不肯或敷地回應我。 我病了在15/3缺席但有醫生証明但法庭全不理會。在判詞中取消個案明顯歧視地說我拖延，故尋求法律的公正客觀處理，不能濫權將當事人的利益不理。 (2) 初審時法庭、律政與及警方都是想制濫造互相抄襲及推卸責任故一併揭露。」 這項申請應在5月2日審理。事前申請人又再向法庭要求押後。本席指示申請人要在聆訊當天親身提出申請，但申請人最終都缺席聆訊。無論如何，在上訴的議題方面，答辯人的陳詞是：申請人所持的理據並不乎合法例的要求，法庭不應發出證明書。本席接納這個觀點。 申請人沒有出席聆訊，而他所提出的議題亦不屬於法例所指的範疇，因此本席決定駁回申請。 (湯寶臣) 高等法院原訟法庭法官 答辯人： 由律政司高級檢控官梁燊頤代表香港特別行政區。 申請人： 無律師代表，缺席聆訊。