R. v. YEUNG MAN HUNG

Headnote

Criminal Procedure (Representation) Rules: No notice to act filed: Solicitors having       instructions to advise: applicant treated as in person.

---------

Silke, V.-P.:

1. This matter resulted from a robbery conviction on 1st May 1990 and a sentence of 14 years imprisonment imposed on 3rd May 1990. The applicant applied for legal aid which application was refused on 17th September 1990. Since then, there have been numerous adjournments of this matter, it having been listed on several occasions. On 5th December 1990 the applicant had informed us that he attempted to employ solicitors but he was not represented on that day. There was an adjournment to 21st December 1990 for mention. A transcript was refused. The Director of Legal Aid was asked to assist on certain matters of instructions which the applicant said he had given to counsel at trial and the Crown was asked to assist in relation to any complaints made to the Independent Commission Against Corruption by the applicant. The court said it would, if necessary, reconsider the application for transcript.

2. In fact, there was additional transcript made available on 25th February 1991.

3. The matter was complicated because a solicitor's clerk had been charged in the magistracy with matters relating to his dealings with lay clients. Upon that matter being brought to the conclusion of a conviction, the solicitor's clerk appealed. On 18th July '1991 his appeal was allowed in the High Court sitting in its appellate jurisdiction in relation to Magisterial Appeals. This case was then refixed for hearing on 10th November 1991. A firm of solicitors subsequently asked for the hearing date to be vacated. On 30th September it was refixed for another date.

4. On 22nd November 1991 yet another firm of solicitors, Chan & Kong, asked for a copy of the summing up which was not in the bundle which they had received. That was sent to them.

5. On 17th February 1992 the solicitors firm requested a transcript of the proceedings in the lower court but as the applicant is still in person - the solicitors firm not having filed any Notice to Act - this court declined to deal with an application from solicitors who were not on record.

6. The matter was placed in the lists today for mention in order to attempt to resolve the difficulties which seemed to have arisen and get it on for hearing. Chan & Kong informed the court by letter of 3rd March, of which the applicant has a copy, that their instructions were "to advise on the merits of the appeal only" and that they had no instructions to appear today.

7. The Criminal Procedure (Representation) Rules which are contained in Cap. 221 at page H1 reads in its rule 2:

"2. A solicitor who accepts instructions to represent a party other than the Crown in any proceedings in the criminal jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal or the High Court shall forthwith give notice of his appointment to the Registrar in accordance with the form in the Schedule."

8. Until such notice has been filed this court must consider an applicant to be an applicant in person.

9. To permit the applicant to make whatever arrangements he can with the present solicitors for his representation, this matter will be fixed for hearing in June 1992. That gives ample time to make the necessary arrangements but whatever they are those matters between the applicant and his selected firm of solicitors.

10. The applicant will be informed of the precise date in June within the course of the next few days once the Clerk of the Lists has allocated the date. Then we expect this matter to proceed without any further adjournment. Matters of this nature cannot be allowed to be dragged out in this fashion.