Hong Kong Judgment

Court of Final Appeal

YIM SUK HAN v. HKSAR

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show that the case was rare and exceptional or that there was a reasonably arguable departure from accepted norms so serious as to justify a second criminal appeal in the absence of a point of law of great and general importance.

Court disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused.

02

Material facts

Parties

YIM SUK HAN

Applicant Counsel: Mr Shahmim K Khattak (instructed by Messrs C K Chan & Co)

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

Respondent Counsel: Ms Mary Sin; Mr Isaac Tam (Department of Justice)

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Proceedings (criminal) Application for Leave to Appeal From HCMA No. 945 of 2006 / Determination on Application for Leave to Appeal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Counsel submitted extensive written and oral arguments asserting substantial and grave injustice and alleging departure from accepted norms, seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
Respondent
The respondent (Department of Justice) argued that the case is not rare or exceptional, does not disclose a reasonably arguable departure from accepted norms, and does not raise a point of law of great and general importance to justify leave.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court of Final Appeal (this determination)

    Appeals to the Court of Final Appeal on the ground of substantial and grave injustice are reserved for rare and exceptional cases.

  2. 02

    Court of Final Appeal (this determination)

    The primary function of the Court of Final Appeal in criminal matters is to resolve points of law of great and general importance; absent such a controversy, leave will not be granted except in genuinely exceptional circumstances.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show that the case was rare and exceptional or that there was a reasonably arguable departure from accepted norms so serious as to justify a second criminal appeal in the absence of a point of law of great and general importance.

Obiter and limits

  • Counsel for the applicant advanced every possible argument with industry but the statutory and jurisprudential threshold for leave is deliberately high.
  • The Court emphasised the limited scope of its intervention in criminal appeals absent significant legal controversy.

Court disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

  • Leave to appeal refused.

Source and reliance status

Court of Final Appeal · 31 May 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.

Source document

Court of Final Appeal

Judgment· 31 May 2007

YIM SUK HAN v. HKSAR

bjbj FAMC No. 8 of 2007

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 8 OF 2007 (CRIMINAL) (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM HCMA NO. 945 OF 2006) _____ Between:

YIM SUK HAN 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 : 31 May 2007 Date of Determination : 31 May 2007

D E T E R M I N A T I O N Mr Justice Bokhary PJ : Mr Khattak has, with great industry, put forward, in writing and in oral argument, everything that can possible be advanced on the applicant s behalf. His task is a difficult one. Appeals to the Court of Final Appeal on the substantial and grave injustice ground are reserved for rare and exceptional cases so rare and exceptional as to disclose a reasonably arguable complaint of a departure from accepted norms so seriously to the complainant s disadvantage as to justify a second criminal appeal even in the absence of any real controversy on a point of law of great and general importance, the resolution of such controversy being the primary function of the Court of Final Appeal in the administration of criminal justice. In our view, this is not a case of that nature. Accordingly leave to appeal is refused. (Kemal Bokhary) (Patrick Chan) (RAV Ribeiro) Permanent Judge Permanent Judge Permanent Judge Mr Shahmim K Khattak (instructed by Messrs C K Chan & Co) for the applicant Ms Mary Sin and Mr Isaac Tam (of the Department of Justice) for the respondent

PAGE -

PAGE - &`#$ Normal.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Hong Kong Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.