THE QUEEN v. TONG CHIU-CHUEN

---------------------

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Hon. Yang, C.J.:

1. The applicant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment on 23rd November 1988.

2. The Notice of Application for leave to appeal signed by the applicant on 12th December 1988 contained a clear acknowledgment by the applicant that it had been fully explained to him that if he appealed against both conviction and sentence at the same time, one would not have any adverse effect on the other. In the event he chose to appeal against conviction only. He now applies for leave to appeal against sentence out of time. Neither his own affirmation of 30th August 1989 nor that of the Legal Aid clerk of 10th October 1989 explains why on 12th December 1988 he did not accept the statement acknowledged by him in his notice of that date. The affirmations do not go beyond saying that on 3rd February 1989 the applicant thought an appeal against sentence might to some extent damage his appeal against conviction: he therefore refused to apply for leave to appeal against sentence out of time. The appeal against conviction was in fact heard on 25th May 1989 and dismissed.

3. This application for leave to appeal against sentence out of time was lodged on 7th June 1989.

4. No explanation having been given as to why the applicant had failed to follow the explanation given him on 12th December 1988, we do not think a case has been made out for an extension of time.

5. Leave for extension of time is therefore refused.