|
CACV000343A/1999
CACV 343/1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 343 OF 1999
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 127 OF 1999)
____________________
|
IN THE MATTER of an application for habeas corpus pursuant to section 22A of the High Court Ordinance, Cap 4, Laws of Hong Kong
|
|
|
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
CHONG BING KEUNG, PETER |
Applicant |
|
|
|
|
AND |
|
|
|
|
|
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
1st Respondent |
|
|
|
|
THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF LAI CHI KOK RECEPTION CENTRE |
2nd Respondent |
____________________
Coram: Hon Godfrey VP, Rogers and Ribeiro in Court
Date of Hearing: 29 March 2000
Date of Judgment: 29 March 2000
_________________
J U D G M E N T
_________________
Ribeiro JA:
1. Having been committed to custody to await the Chief Executive's decision as to his surrender to the United States under the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance Cap. 503, the appellant made an application for a writ of habeas corpus contending that the order of committal had been made without jurisdiction. On 26 October 1999, Stock J dismissed that application and on 23 February 2000, this court unanimously dismissed the appellant's appeal.
2. The appellant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal contending that the question involved in the proposed appeal is one which by reason of its great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.
3. The question has been formulated as follows:
"In determining whether a person should be extradited from Hong Kong to the U.S.A. under the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (Cap. 503) in order to be satisfied that the requirements placed upon the court by the Ordinance were met and that the court had jurisdiction to make the Order should the court receive in evidence and take into account the fact that a court of competent jurisdiction in the U.S.A. had ruled that there was no valid extradition treaty with Hong Kong and had refused the order the extradition of a person to Hong Kong on this ground."
4. It is my view for the reasons set out in my judgment that the issues raised are governed by principles that are well settled in law, rendering the appellant's case unsustainable. I am therefore of the opinion that the question formulated is not appropriate to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.
5. I would accordingly dismiss this application.
Rogers JA:
6. I agree.
Godfrey VP:
7. I also agree.
| (Gerald Godfrey) |
(Anthony Rogers) |
(R.A.V. Ribeiro) |
| Vice President |
Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
Representation:
Mr Philip Dykes, SC instructed by Messrs Boase, Cohen & Collins for the Applicant
Mr Wayne Walsh, SGC of Department of Justice for the Respondents
Remarks:
On application by the Applicant to the Appeal Committee: Leave to appeal is dismissed with costs. Please refer to Determination FAMV000010/2000.
|