HKSAR v. WOO WING SEE, PHYLLIS

HKSAR v. WOO WING SEE, PHYLLIS

The court refused the section 32 certificate because the decision did not involve a point of law of great and general importance and the framed point was not reasonably arguable; specifically the court found no basis to read section 18(1) of the Prisons Ordinance as requiring additional authorization by the Commissioner and rejected the contention that the court's interpretation would criminalise legal representatives of prisoners.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 4899
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 2nd Appellant (applicant): WOO Wing See, Phyllis
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 October 2025
Case Number
HCMA350/2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Certificate Under Section 32 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 / Decision on Section 32 Certificate Application
Outcome
Application for certificate under section 32 refused
Legal Topics
Authorization of Articles, Section 18(1) Prisons Ordinance, Prison Rules (cap 234 A), Ombudsman Correspondence, Certificate to Appeal, Point of Law of Great and General Importance
Source Language
EN
Prison Law Criminal Law Statutory Interpretation Administrative Law Authorization of Articles Section 18(1) Prisons Ordinance Prison Rules (cap 234 A) Ombudsman Correspondence +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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

WOO Wing See, Phyllis

2nd Appellant (applicant)

Procedural Posture

Application for Certificate Under Section 32 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 / Decision on Section 32 Certificate Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a letter from a prisoner to the Ombudsman is an article authorized by the Prison Rules for the purposes of section 18(1) of the Prisons Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the court's decision involves a point of law of great and general importance
  3. 3 Whether the point of law as framed is reasonably arguable

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the section 32 certificate because the decision did not involve a point of law of great and general importance and the framed point was not reasonably arguable; specifically the court found no basis to read section 18(1) of the Prisons Ordinance as requiring additional authorization by the Commissioner and rejected the contention that the court's interpretation would criminalise legal representatives of prisoners.

Court Disposition

Application for certificate under section 32 refused

Orders

  • Application for a certificate refused
  • No certificate granted under section 32 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484