|
CACC235/2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 235 OF 2009
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 1047 OF 2008)
____________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
HKSAR |
Respondent |
|
and
|
| |
HUNG JOHN TERENCE (洪承禧) |
Applicant |
| ____________________ |
Before: Hon Kwan JA, Wright and Line JJ
Date of Hearing: 14 October 2010
Date of Decision: 14 October 2010
____________________
D E C I S I O N
____________________
Hon Line J:
1. This application asks us to certify, for the purpose of Section 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, that two points of law of great general and public importance were involved in our judgment in these proceedings, handed down on 8 July 2010, namely
(a) are the words “agent” and “principal” to be accorded their meaning as legal terms of art or their ordinary and natural meaning?
(b) is the analysis of the legal relationship of an alleged agent and his alleged principal irrelevant to guilt under section 9?
2. We refuse the application and decline to certify.
In our view, the case for the approach that this court adopted in HKSAR v Fung Hok Cheung [2008] 5 HKLRD invites no further debate. The argument advanced to the contrary lacks sufficient force to move us to grant a certificate.
(Susan Kwan)
Justice of Appeal |
(A R Wright)
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
(P Line)
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
Mr Jonathan Man, Senior Public Prosecutor of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent
Mr Barrie Barlow, Senior Counsel and Mr Kevin Egan, instructed by Messrs Robertsons, for the Applicant
Leave to appeal by the applicant to Court of Final Appeal refused. Please refer to FAMC85/2010 dated 22 February 2011 |