香港特別行政區 訴 H.Z.
Bail was refused because the application merely repeated the previously dismissed application without any material change or new evidence, and the alleged collusion to induce guilty pleas was speculative and unsupported, therefore insufficient to justify bail pending appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] HKCA 1081
- Parties
- Applicant: H.Z.; Respondent: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 19 November 2024
- Case Number
- CACC10/2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Bail Application Pending Appeal After Sentencing
- Outcome
- Bail application refused.
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Appeal, Leave to Appeal (out of Time), Sentence Appeal, Alleged Inducement of Guilty Plea
- 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
H.Z.
Applicant
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Bail Application Pending Appeal After Sentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether bail should be granted pending appeal
- 2 Whether there has been any change in circumstances or new evidence since the prior bail refusal
- 3 Whether the applicant's allegation of collusion to induce guilty pleas constitutes a credible new ground
Ratio Decidendi
Bail was refused because the application merely repeated the previously dismissed application without any material change or new evidence, and the alleged collusion to induce guilty pleas was speculative and unsupported, therefore insufficient to justify bail pending appeal.
Court Disposition
Bail application refused.
Orders
- Application for bail pending appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACC 10/2023,[2024] HKCA 1081 原案件:[2023] HKCFI 278 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 刑事司法管轄權 上訴期間申請保釋 刑事上訴案件2023年第10號 (原高等法院原訟法庭刑事案件2022年第170號) __________________ 答辯人 香港特別行政區 對 申請人 H.Z. __________________ 主審法官: 高等法院上訴法庭法官彭偉昌 聆訊日期: 2024年11月15日 判決日期: 2024年11月15日 判決理由書日期: 2024年11月19日 判決理由書 申請人在裁判法院承認15項控罪,在交付高院後被原訟法庭法官邱智立判囚7年。上訴人不服,不但就刑期提出上訴許可申請,而且也就控罪14和15的定罪提出逾期上訴許可申請。期間,他亦希望獲得保釋在外等候相關的聆訊。不過,他第一次的保釋申請已被我拒絕([2024] HKCA 1004),今天的申請則只為上一次的重複,在內容上未能顯示情況有任何改變。至於他提到的所謂新論點,即原審辯方大律師與控方合謀誘騙他承認控罪14和15,那只是申請人的妄自猜想,沒有半點證據可支持。我駁回他這次(即第二次)的申請。 (彭偉昌) 高等法院上訴法庭法官 申請人: 無律師代表,親自應訊 答辯人: 由律政司高級檢控官林曉敏女士代表