Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Certificate under s32 court of final appeal ordinance

Legal area

Court

22 Oct 2025

香港特別行政區訴何麗雯

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5629
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA503/2024

The application for a certificate was refused because the applicant failed to file written submissions as directed and had ample opportunity to do so; the points raised are factual or unarguable legal contentions and do not satisfy the dual requirement under s32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance to show a legal point of great and wide importance or substantial and grave unfairness, therefore no certificate could be issued.
11 Sept 2018

HKSAR v. LIU CHUN SING

Citation

[2018] HKCA 596
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC208/2016

The Court held that the trial directions accorded with established law and Specimen Direction 21.3 as explained in Kwan Ping Bong and Winnie Lo; the judge's phrasing did not place a burden on the defence; the questions did not raise points of law of great and general importance and certification under s32(2) was declined.
6 Oct 2005

HKSAR v. KWAN WING KEI

Citation

HKSAR v. KWAN WING KEI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC57/2005

The applications were dismissed because they sought unavailable relief (leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal rather than a s32 certificate), were filed out of time (24 days after judgment) in breach of statutory time limits and Practice Directions with no extension or explanation, and were presented incompetently and sloppily; substantively s67C permits consideration of post-sentence conduct but the application did not raise a proper certificate issue warranting intervention.
13 Nov 2001

HKSAR v. WONG KAM PO

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KAM PO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC78/1999

The Court declined to grant the s32 Certificate because (1) the contested psychiatric evidence was irrelevant to the jury's central issue in D8's case and thus not admissible for that purpose, and (2) a s65A direction was not required in the circumstances given the directions actually given; the court did not lay down a blanket rule and the decision is case specific.
24 Sept 2001

HKSAR v. WONG YIU WAH AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG YIU WAH AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA508/2001

Although the 1st appellant's conviction was quashed on appeal, the appellate court found ample circumstantial evidence that the licensee had knowledge of and permitted a system offering immoral services, thereby bringing suspicion upon him; consequently the general rule awarding costs to an acquitted defendant did not apply and the 1st appellant was deprived of costs. The application for a s32 certificate was refused because the contested issue as to whether private premises open to the public constitute a "public place" is fact‑specific and does not raise a point of law of great and general…

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 何麗雯

HKSAR v. LIU CHUN SING

HKSAR v. KWAN WING KEI

HKSAR v. WONG KAM PO

HKSAR v. WONG YIU WAH AND OTHERS

香港特別行政區訴何麗雯