R. v. WONG YIN PING

1996, NO. MA 1534

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The appellant appeals in person.

2. On 2^nd October 1996 Mr Louis Tong, magistrate at Tuen Mun Magistracy granted an application for a search warrant of the appellant's premises and issued that warrant.

3. On 30^th October 1996, the appellant was charged with the offence of using a false instrument and alternatively, possession of a false instrument to be heard at the Tuen Mun Magistracy before Mr Tong. He adjourned the case to 5^th December 1996 because of his concerns about the appellant and ordered a psychiatric report in respect of her mental condition. On 5^th December 1996, the psychiatric report was considered by the magistrate who noted from it that the appellant was fit to stand trial. The case was set down for trial on 12^th February 1997 with two further days reserved and a pre-trial review was heard on 24^th January 1997.

4. The appellant also applied to review the order of the magistrate to issue the search warrant and to obtain a psychiatric report. The magistrate explained the basis of his orders to the appellant even though his orders were not reviewable under s.104 of the Magistrates Ordinance. Not satisfied with the magistrate's explanation, the appellant purports to appeal the orders of the magistrate to issue the search warrant and to obtain a psychiatric report. She further seeks to appeal what the magistrate construed as an application for stay of the trial which he refused. In addition, before me, she asks for release to her of the information given to the magistrate which led to the issue of the search warrant. The appeal is instituted by way of Notice of Appeal against an order dated 5^th December 1996 and purports to be made pursuant to s.113 of the Magistrates Ordinance, Cap.227.

5. The law in respect of appeal such as this is and has been settled for a considerable period of time. An appeal lies at the suit of a person aggrieved by any conviction order or determination of a magistrate in respect of or in connection with any offence. Conviction, order or determination must be read ejusdem generis and whilst it covers orders in connection with an offence, it does not include orders or interlocutory decisions in connection with the trial of that offence. The authorities for that proposition are R. v. Choi Kwan Sing Cr.App.No.505 of 1968 and R. v. Leung Kwong Fai Cr.App.No.503 of 1982, together with an appeal in respect of a case stated pursuant to s.105 of the Magistrates Ordinance being R. v. Yeung Wai Hung [1990] 2 HKC 86.

6. That being so and none of the matters addressed by the appellant call for a determination on appeal by me and this appeal fails for want of jurisdiction, the appeal is dismissed.