HKSAR v. CHAN PUN CHUNG AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. CHAN PUN CHUNG AND ANOTHER

Because the applicants conceded that the conduct remained unlawful and that the legislature could not have intended to render such conduct unenforceable, and because the Court found the true intent of the transitional provisions to permit prosecution for pre-abolition conspiracy, there was no point of law of great and general importance to certify; accordingly the application for a certificate under s.32(2) was refused.

Citation
HKSAR v. CHAN PUN CHUNG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Applicant: Chan Pun Chung; 2nd Applicant: Shum Hiu Wah
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 February 2000
Case Number
HCMA364/1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal; Application for Certificate Under S.32(2) Court of Final Appeal Ordinance Cap.484 / Decision on Application for Certificate by Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application for certificate under s.32(2) declined
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Abolition of Common Law Offences, Substitution of Offences on Appeal, Magistracy Appeal, Certificate for Point of Law
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Statutory Interpretation Transitional Provisions Conspiracy Abolition of Common Law Offences Substitution of Offences on Appeal Magistracy Appeal Certificate for Point of Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

Chan Pun Chung

1st Applicant

Shum Hiu Wah

2nd Applicant

Procedural Posture

Appeal; Application for Certificate Under S.32(2) Court of Final Appeal Ordinance Cap.484 / Decision on Application for Certificate by Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conduct amounting to a common law offence occurring before abolition may be prosecuted after abolition
  2. 2 Whether common law conspiracy may be prosecuted after 2 August 1996 for conduct occurring before that date
  3. 3 Whether on a Magistracy Appeal the Court of Appeal may substitute and convict for a different offence in (a) exceptional circumstances, (b) where defendant did not give evidence at trial, and (c) where defendant changed instructions after verdict

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicants conceded that the conduct remained unlawful and that the legislature could not have intended to render such conduct unenforceable, and because the Court found the true intent of the transitional provisions to permit prosecution for pre-abolition conspiracy, there was no point of law of great and general importance to certify; accordingly the application for a certificate under s.32(2) was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for certificate under s.32(2) declined

Orders

  • Application for certificate declined; no points of law certified