HKSAR v. LEUNG KIT HING DORIS

HCMA 44/2024

[2025] HKCFI 5731

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 44 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 2924/2023)

________________________

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1.  On the morning of 7 November 2025, I handed down my Reasons for Judgment in respect of my dismissal of the Applicant's appeal against conviction and orders, and allowing her appeal against sentence on 12 September 2025. Before she received my Reasons for Judgment, on 15 September 2025 the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion making an application to this court for a certificate under Section 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Chapter 484 for points of law which are of great and general importance.

2.  On the Notice of Motion she mentioned three points:

(1) The legal principle of no case to answer and the conviction was unsafe as there were a lot of doubts.

(2) There was no pre-trial review or direction hearing.

(3) Voir dire.

3.  During the application this morning, the Applicant mentioned that the Principal Magistrate should have ruled no case to answer in respect of her case at the Mention hearing when she first appeared at the Eastern Magistracy because (i) the papers had never been served on her; and (ii) she had not committed the offence. There should be a no case to answer ruling straight away instead of setting the case down for adjournment and for trial.

4.  The Applicant stated that there was no pre-trial review or direction hearing, therefore she should not be convicted.

5.  On the point of voir dire, according to my understanding, the Applicant was referring to the admissibility of evidence at the trial and the admissibility of the Respondent’s submissions at the appeal hearing. She referred to the fabrication of evidence by the prosecution and the police in that they had tampered with the CCTV and the bodycam footages to fabricate the evidence against her. The footages should not be admitted into evidence because of the modification and fabrication. This was one of the matters she had raised before the trial magistrate and also before me at the earlier appeal hearing in September.

6.  In respect of the admissibility of the Respondent’s submissions at the appeal hearing, the Applicant insisted that copy of the submissions had not been served on her and that was in breach of Section 65B of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221 as well as Practice Direction 9.6. As such the submissions should not be admitted.

7.  In any event, during the oral hearing of the appeal in September, the Respondent had informed her details of the objection to her appeal already.

8.  As for the other matters, the Applicant stated that her conviction was unsafe because she did not assault PW1; she should not be convicted because she had no knowledge of what she was doing at the time; and the prosecution did not object to her appeal, therefore the appeal should be allowed.

9.  She also said, on one hand, that the prosecution bundle was not served on her before the trial, but on the other hand she said whenever the prosecution or the police tried to serve the bundle on her, she rejected them all because there was no case management hearing. I'm aware from the trial bundle that she was in possession of the witness statements at the time of the trial, and she used those statements in her cross-examination.

10.  Having considered all the matters raised by the Applicant both in her Notice of Motion and her oral submission today, I am satisfied that none of the matters raised by her can be considered as a point of law of great and general importance. Indeed she was only making use of the opportunity to re-argue the issues that had already been raised both at trial and on appeal.

11.  For these reasons, I am not satisfied that there is any point of law of great and general importance, and I refuse to certify the proposed points of law raised by the Applicant.