MOK KIN KAU v. HKSAR
- Citation
- MOK KIN KAU v. HKSAR
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of Final Appeal
- Decision
- 6 November 2007
- Posture
- Miscellaneous Proceedings (criminal) Application for Leave to Appeal From HCMA No.1161 of 2006 / Determination on Application for Leave to Appeal
- Case number
- FAMC51/2007
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Final Appeal
- Decision
- 6 November 2007
- Posture
- Miscellaneous Proceedings (criminal) Application for Leave to Appeal From HCMA No.1161 of 2006 / Determination on Application for Leave to Appeal
- Case number
- FAMC51/2007
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Leave to appeal was granted because it was reasonably arguable that a third trial in the circumstances would constitute a departure from accepted norms and cause substantial and grave injustice to the accused, engaging s.32(2).
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted under the substantial and grave injustice limb of s.32(2)
Orders
- Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal granted
- Hearing of appeal fixed for 17 January 2008
02
Material facts
Parties
MOK KIN KAU
Applicant Counsel: Mr Andrew Bruce SC (instructed by Messrs Y L Yeung & Co.)HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
Respondent Counsel: Mr Simon Tam (of the Department of Justice)03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (criminal) Application for Leave to Appeal From HCMA No.1161 of 2006 / Determination on Application for Leave to Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether leave to appeal should be granted under the substantial and grave injustice limb of s.32(2)
- 02
Whether a third trial in the circumstances would constitute a departure from accepted norms to the accused's disadvantage
- 03
Whether undue delay requires intervention to bring matters to conclusion
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant argued that, given the history, a third trial would likely cause substantial and grave injustice and disadvantage to the accused and that the court should grant leave to appeal under the s.32(2) limb.
- Respondent
- Respondent opposed leave to appeal and maintained that a retrial was appropriate and that the circumstances did not establish substantial and grave injustice warranting leave.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court's determination
Proceedings should be brought to a conclusion without undue delay as a fundamental feature of the criminal justice system
- 02
s.32(2) of the Court's statute
Leave to appeal may be granted under the substantial and grave injustice limb where further trial would result in prejudice to the accused
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted because it was reasonably arguable that a third trial in the circumstances would constitute a departure from accepted norms and cause substantial and grave injustice to the accused, engaging s.32(2).
Obiter and limits
- Bringing matters to a conclusion without undue delay is an important feature of our criminal justice system.
- A third trial in circumstances like these can, in principle, constitute a departure from accepted norms to an accused person's disadvantage.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted under the substantial and grave injustice limb of s.32(2)
- Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal granted
- Hearing of appeal fixed for 17 January 2008
Source and reliance status
Court of Final Appeal · 6 November 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· 6 November 2007
bjbj FAMC No. 51 of 2007
IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 51 OF 2007 (CRIMINAL) (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM HCMA NO. 1161 OF 2006) _____ Between:
MOK KIN KAU Applicant - and -
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION Respondent _____ Appeal Committee : Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ Date of Hearing : 6 November 2007 Date of Determination : 6 November 2007
D E T E R M I N A T I O N Mr Justice Bokhary PJ : Bringing matters to a conclusion without undue delay is an important feature of our criminal justice system. It is reasonably arguable that a third trial in circumstances like these would constitute a departure from accepted norms to an accused person s disadvantage. We grant the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under the substantial and grave injustice limb of s.32(2) of the Court s statute. [Hearing of appeal fixed for 17 January 2008.] (Kemal Bokhary) (Patrick Chan) (RAV Ribeiro) Permanent Judge Permanent Judge Permanent Judge Mr Andrew Bruce SC (instructed by Messrs Y L Yeung & Co.) for the applicant Mr Simon Tam (of the Department of Justice) for the respondent
PAGE -
PAGE - &`#$ Normal.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Title 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.