HKSAR v. CHAN NAI MING
- Citation
- HKSAR v. CHAN NAI MING
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of Final Appeal
- Decision
- 3 January 2007
- Posture
- Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal / Bail Pending Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal
- Case number
- FAMC61/2006
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Final Appeal
- Decision
- 3 January 2007
- Posture
- Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal / Bail Pending Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal
- Case number
- FAMC61/2006
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The single permanent judge should not determine the merits of the leave application on a bail application; to preserve the applicant's position the applicant was admitted to bail pending determination of the application for leave to appeal on specified conditions securing surrender and preventing departure from Hong Kong.
Court disposition
Applicant admitted to bail pending determination of application for leave to appeal
Orders
- Applicant to deposit HK$5,000 with the court to secure his surrender to custody
- Applicant shall not leave or attempt to leave Hong Kong without permission of the Court obtained by application to a single permanent judge
- Applicant shall reside at the address identified by his counsel at the hearing
- Applicant shall not change his address without permission of the Court obtained by application to a single permanent judge
02
Material facts
Parties
HKSAR
Respondent Counsel: Mr Hayson K S Tse (Department of Justice)CHAN NAI MING
Applicant Counsel: Mr Kevin K H Pun (Messrs Chak & Associates)Amounts and remedies
- Deposit: HKD 5,000
- Sentence Months: 3
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal / Bail Pending Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether applicant should be admitted to bail pending determination of leave to appeal
- 02
Whether points raised constitute points of law of great and general importance
- 03
Whether points are reasonably arguable
- 04
Whether a single permanent judge should decide merits of leave application in the context of a bail application
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant sought bail pending determination of his application for leave to appeal because he would have served almost two-thirds of his three month sentence by the time the Appeal Committee hears the leave application, rendering a successful leave application largely nugatory.
- Respondent
- Government opposed bail on the ground there was no reasonable prospect of leave being granted because the points raised were not points of law of great and general importance and were not reasonably arguable.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Sher Ali Khan v HKSAR (FAMC 4/2006, 2.2.06)
Decision on whether to grant leave to appeal is for the Appeal Committee; a single permanent judge should not determine the merits of leave in the context of a bail application unless exigencies require it.
- 02
This decision (FAMC No. 61 of 2006)
Bail may be granted to preserve the appellant's position pending determination of leave to appeal, subject to appropriate conditions to secure surrender to custody and prevent absconding.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The single permanent judge should not determine the merits of the leave application on a bail application; to preserve the applicant's position the applicant was admitted to bail pending determination of the application for leave to appeal on specified conditions securing surrender and preventing departure from Hong Kong.
Obiter and limits
- The grounds relied on by the government for refusal of leave may or may not be good grounds; the judge expresses no opinion on the merits of the leave application.
- The bail application properly relates only to the period pending the hearing of the leave application.
Court disposition
Applicant admitted to bail pending determination of application for leave to appeal
- Applicant to deposit HK$5,000 with the court to secure his surrender to custody
- Applicant shall not leave or attempt to leave Hong Kong without permission of the Court obtained by application to a single permanent judge
- Applicant shall reside at the address identified by his counsel at the hearing
- Applicant shall not change his address without permission of the Court obtained by application to a single permanent judge
Source and reliance status
Court of Final Appeal · 3 January 2007
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Final Appeal
Judgment· 3 January 2007
bjbj FAMC No. 61 of 2006
IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 61 OF 2006 (Criminal) (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM HCMA No. 1221 of 2005) _____ Between: HKSAR Respondent - and - CHAN NAI MING Applicant _____ Coram: Mr Justice Ribeiro in Chambers Date of Hearing: 3 January 2007 Date of Decision : 3 January 2007 _______
D E C I S I O N _______ Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ: On 12 December 2006 the applicant began serving his concurrent sentences of three months imprisonment after conviction for certain copyright offences. He has since lodged an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal which the Appeal Committee is to hear on 7 February 2007. In the summons presently before me, the applicant seeks bail pending appeal. As is accepted, the application properly relates to the period pending the hearing of the leave application and I will treat it as such. The applicant has now been in custody for more than three weeks. If he is not given bail, he will, by the time the leave application is heard, have served almost two-thirds of his sentence. He seeks bail to prevent the leave application from being rendered largely nugatory, if successful. The government opposes bail on the ground that there is no reasonable prospect of leave to appeal being granted, first, because the points raised are said not to be points of law of great and general importance; and secondly, because they are said to be not reasonably arguable. Those may or may not be good grounds for refusing leave. I express no opinion at this stage since the question of whether leave should be granted is a matter for the Appeal Committee. It is undesirable for a single permanent judge to take a stand on these
questions in the context of a bail application unless the exigencies of the situation require such a course: see Sher Ali Khan v HKSAR (FAMC 4/2006, 2.2.06). In the present case, there is no reason why the decision on leave to appeal should not be left to be taken in the usual way by the Appeal Committee while preserving the applicant s position. I will accordingly order that the applicant be admitted to bail pending determination of his application for leave to appeal on conditions to which he consents, namely, that: he shall deposit the sum of HK$5,000.00 with the court for the purpose of securing his surrender to custody; he shall not leave or attempt to leave Hong Kong without permission of the Court which should be sought by application to a single permanent judge; he shall reside at the address identified by his counsel at the hearing; and, he shall not change his address without permission of the Court, again to be sought by application to a single permanent judge. (R A V Ribeiro) Permanent Judge Mr Kevin K H Pun (instructed by Messrs Chak & Associates) for the applicant Mr Hayson K S Tse (of the Department of Justice) for the respondent
PAGE X (# V`]#& GF@% bt 0 roL& V.IT ,.5X jM[& $/h& t|u& U)gy GF@% V.IT U)gy bt 0 ,.5X V`]# Normal.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Hong Kong Title _AdHocReviewCycleID _EmailSubject _AuthorEmail _AuthorEmailDisplayName Bail ruling rribeiro@netvigator.com Robert Ribeiro Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.