ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LI SIU LAN

_____

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Silke, V.P.:

1. On 4th November 1988, a Case was stated by His Honour Judge Roy in the District Court at the request of the Attorney General. It now transpires that the request was made through an officer who was not a person authorised to do so. We have dealt with a similar matter in The Attorney General v. Wong Kwai Fung and another, Criminal No. 516 of 1988. The lack of authroisation related to alterations in the Gazette Notification 1313 of 1986 which changed the terms of a previous Authorisation. On that occasion, we made an order that the application be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

2. The matter in which Judge Roy has stated his Case came on for hearing in January and judgment was reserved - I would interpolate that any delay in the delivery of that judgment is entirely due to me and to no one else. In the light of what we now know this also must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

3. However both counsel, Mr. Cross and Mr. Howard, are anxious that the matter should be resolved for a point of law arises in it which will not affect the Respondent himself and, as no order is likely to his made to his detriment, that argument already advanced be not wasted.

4. We are asked therefore to extend time under the provisions of section 84 of the District Court Ordinance, Cap. 336 to permit the proper officer, in the name of the Attorney General, to make to the same judge an application to state a case out of time. We are prepared to give that leave and the mechanics of the matter would appear to be, and it was agreed that this would be proper, that the application is forwarded to the Registrar signed by the proper officer. It would then be married with the Order that we have just made giving leave to extend and together they be sent, with the Case which has already signed, to the judge to sign a fresh case in similar terms. The matter should then come on for hearing before this Court as presently constituted.