HKSAR v. NG CHIN YUE WILSON AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. NG CHIN YUE WILSON AND ANOTHER

The application for a certificate was refused because s39C(12) does not create a conclusive evidential presumption and it is not reasonably arguable that it does; additionally the other questions were not decided in the underlying judgment and therefore are not points of law "involved in the decision" for certification under section 32(2).

Citation
HKSAR v. NG CHIN YUE WILSON AND ANOTHER
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Appellant: NG Chin Yue Wilson; 2nd Appellant: NG Yee Man Yvonne
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 March 2015
Case Number
HCMA684/2013
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (high Court, Court of First Instance) on Appeal From ESCC 1483 of 2013 / Decision on Application for Certificate Under Section 32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance
Outcome
Application for certificate under section 32(2) refused
Legal Topics
Perverting the Course of Public Justice, Interpretation of Section 39 C(12) Road Traffic Ordinance, Rebuttable Versus Conclusive Presumptions, Admissibility of Breath/blood/urine Analysis, Certification for Leave to Appeal
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Road Traffic Law Appeals Statutory Interpretation Perverting the Course of Public Justice Interpretation of Section 39 C(12) Road Traffic Ordinance Rebuttable Versus Conclusive Presumptions +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

NG Chin Yue Wilson

1st Appellant

NG Yee Man Yvonne

2nd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (high Court, Court of First Instance) on Appeal From ESCC 1483 of 2013 / Decision on Application for Certificate Under Section 32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 39C(12) of the Road Traffic Ordinance is a conclusive evidence presumption
  2. 2 Whether post-offence consumption of alcohol can constitute actus reus of perverting the course of public justice
  3. 3 Whether an act that only makes investigation more difficult or does not mislead a court can amount to perverting the course of public justice

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a certificate was refused because s39C(12) does not create a conclusive evidential presumption and it is not reasonably arguable that it does; additionally the other questions were not decided in the underlying judgment and therefore are not points of law "involved in the decision" for certification under section 32(2).

Court Disposition

Application for certificate under section 32(2) refused

Orders

  • Refusal of the Notice of Motion dated 2 February 2015 seeking a certificate under section 32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance