香港特別行政區 訴 葉祖榮
Bail was refused because the applicant's new grounds attacked only factual findings of the trial judge, whose finding of intent to extort was reasonable; the applicant failed to show arguable grounds or exceptional circumstances and public interest and court scheduling justified refusal of bail and refusal to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] HKCA 940
- Parties
- Applicant: YIP Cho wing (葉祖榮); Respondent: The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 15 August 2019
- Case Number
- CACC265/2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Bail Application Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for bail pending appeal refused; application to adjourn the appeal refused.
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Appeal, Intent to Extort, Leave to Appeal, Adjournment of Appeal
- 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
YIP Cho wing (葉祖榮)
Applicant
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Bail Application Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether bail pending appeal should be granted
- 2 Whether the new grounds of appeal raise arguable points beyond disputed factual findings
- 3 Whether the trial judge's finding of intent to extort was open to criticism
Ratio Decidendi
Bail was refused because the applicant's new grounds attacked only factual findings of the trial judge, whose finding of intent to extort was reasonable; the applicant failed to show arguable grounds or exceptional circumstances and public interest and court scheduling justified refusal of bail and refusal to adjourn the appeal.
Court Disposition
Application for bail pending appeal refused; application to adjourn the appeal refused.
Orders
- Refused bail pending appeal.
- Refused to adjourn the scheduled appeal date.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACC 265/2018 [2019] HKCA 940 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2018年第265號 (原區域法院刑事案件2018年第76號) __________________ 答辯人 香港特別行政區 對 申請人 YIP Cho wing (葉祖榮) __________________ 主審法官: 高等法院上訴法庭法官彭偉昌 聆訊日期: 2019年8月15日 判案日期: 2019年8月15日 判 案 書 這是申請人第二度申請保釋在外等候上訴。他的首次申請被楊振權副庭長拒絕。 申請人也曾被我拒絕發出許可讓他就定罪提出上訴。而今天的申請,就是基於他重新申請上訴時所提出的新上訴理由。 不過,正如我在庭上與申請人逐一分析,這些理據全部和事實的認定有關。申請人批評原審法官只靠推論,亦未能指出這些推論有何不當之處。 我認為,根據所有證據,原審法官認定申請人有‘勒索’的意圖,是合理和無可批評的。申請人強調他在電郵裡只是‘建議’ 所屬機構給錢、並不認真,則無法令人信服。 申請人也說,他希望保釋外出,是要見肯幫助他的議員及親身為上訴作準備。他甚至說,他才剛決定聘用律師,所以要押後明年一月進行的上訴。 然而,議員可以探囚,而申請人在聘用律師的事上有延誤則不能打亂案件的排期,否則有損公眾利益。 基於以上的理由,我拒絕申請人保釋外出,亦拒絕押後他已定出日期的上訴。 (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: 由律政司署理高級檢控官羅天瑋先生代表