CHONG BING KEUNG, PETER v. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ANOTHER

FAMV No. 10 of 2000

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 10 OF 2000 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM CACV No. 343 OF 1999)

_____________________

________________________

DETERMINATION

________________________

Mr Justice Litton PJ:

1. This is the determination of the Appeal Committee.

2. This application concerns a request for the surrender of a suspected fugitive offender made by the government of the U.S.A. to the government of the Hong Kong S.A.R. Pursuant to that request the Chief Executive made an order to proceed under s.6(2) of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, Cap. 503, whereupon the applicant was arrested. There followed legal proceedings not relevant to this application. On 2 February 1999 a magistrate made an order under s.10(6)(b) of the Ordinance, committing the applicant to custody to await the Chief Executive's decision as to his surrender to the U.S.A. for trial. The applicant challenged the legality of his detention by habeas corpus proceedings. These were dismissed by Stock J whose judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The applicant's subsequent application to that court for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed. Hence the matter now before us.

3. It is unnecessary to rehearse yet once again the admirably comprehensive reasoning in the courts below for dismissing the application. On the face of the material before us, the applicant has been dealt with regularly according to law. There is no question about that. What is urged on his behalf boils down to this: A judgment by a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, given in September 1999, has cast doubt on whether there ever was a constitutionally valid arrangement between the two governments for the return of fugitive offenders; and if there is no such arrangement then, it is said, the whole train of events leading up to and including the magistrate's order to detain has no legal validity.

4. The argument is wholly without substance. As Stock J has rightly pointed out, the Chief Executive in Council has, pursuant to s.3(1), directed that the procedures in the Ordinance should apply as between Hong Kong and the U.S.A.; the magistrate in making his order was bound by that fact. This, alone, is conclusive on the matter. Further, we agree with the Court of Appeal that the other two points dealt with in the Court of Appeal's judgment also presented "insurmountable hurdles" for the applicant.

5. This application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs.