香港特別行政區 訴 林恩
The court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because a private prosecutor does not have a statutory right to appeal a magistrate's refusal to issue a private summons under the cited provisions of the Magistrates Ordinance; the appeal is therefore dismissed and the proper remedy is judicial review.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] HKCFI 775
- Parties
- Appellant: Lam Yan Serene (林恩); Respondent: The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 21 March 2022
- Case Number
- HCMA16/2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal (challenge to Magistrate's Refusal to Issue Private Summons) / Appeal Against Magistrate's Refusal to Issue Private Summons
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; appellant must seek judicial review if challenging the magistrate's decision.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Appeal, Appealability of Magistrates' Decisions, Private Summons, Magistrate's Discretion, Academic Vs Criminal Matters
- 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
Lam Yan Serene (林恩)
Appellant
The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (challenge to Magistrate's Refusal to Issue Private Summons) / Appeal Against Magistrate's Refusal to Issue Private Summons
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a private prosecutor may appeal a magistrate's refusal to issue a private summons under ss.104,105 or 113 of the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap.227)
- 2 Whether the facts alleged disclose any prima facie criminal offence as opposed to academic/administrative matters
- 3 Appropriate remedy where a private prosecutor's application to issue a summons is refused
Ratio Decidendi
The court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because a private prosecutor does not have a statutory right to appeal a magistrate's refusal to issue a private summons under the cited provisions of the Magistrates Ordinance; the appeal is therefore dismissed and the proper remedy is judicial review.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; appellant must seek judicial review if challenging the magistrate's decision.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
HCMA 16/2021 [2022] HKCFI 775 香港特別行政區 高等法院原訟法庭 刑事上訴司法管轄權 判令上訴 案件編號：裁判法院上訴案件2021年第16號 (原觀塘裁判法院雜項案件2020年第747號) ____________ 香港特別行政區 訴 上訴人 Lam Yan Serene (林恩) ____________ 主審法官：高等法院原訟法庭法官張慧玲 判案書日期：2022 年3月21日 判 案 書 A. 背景 上訴人向觀塘裁判法院申請私人傳票，擬檢控香港公開大學人文社會科學院 (「學院」) ，指稱學院對其學科主管廖靜玫博士 (「廖博士」) 監管不力。上訴人指她有理由懷疑並相信廖博士間接操控考試結果，因廖博士沒有指明她是根據「學生指引」 (student guidebook) 的哪一項而評定上訴人的功課涉及抄襲。上訴人亦指稱學院內部混亂、及廖博士對她進行恐嚇。 梁少玲裁判官 (下稱裁判官) 以書面形式處理申請。裁判官於2020年12月4日拒絕申請，並於2021年1月6日頒下「命令理由書」。 裁判官指上訴人的指控屬學院的行政及學術事宜，不屬於刑事罪行的範疇。再者，上訴人所指稱的刑事罪行的主要元素表面看來並不存在。裁判官拒絕上訴人的申請。上訴人現就裁判官的決定提出上訴。 B. 裁斷 上訴法庭在Kwok Tak Ying (郭德英) and HKSAR and Secretary for Justice 案，裁定一名私人檢控者(private prosecutor) 不能根據香港法例第227章《裁判官條例》第104，105或113條提出上訴，以祈推翻裁判官拒絕簽發私人傳票此命令。不服判令的私人檢控者，唯一可行的途徑是司法覆核。 基於裁判官是在2020年12月18日拒絕申請；上訴人是在2020年12月21日提出上訴；答辯人是在2021年3月4日呈交書面陳詞反對申請，而上述郭德英 案上訴庭是在2021年10月11日才頒下判詞，因此上訴人及答辯人當時均不知悉以裁判上訴形式來挑戰裁判官的判令是不恰當的。 基於上述理由，本席根本無法律權力處理有關上訴。本席駁回上訴人就判令提出的上訴。 ( 張慧玲 ) 高等法院原訟法庭法官 答辯人：由律政司高級檢控官黃俊軒代表香港特別行政區 上訴人：無律師代表，親自應訊