THE QUEEN v. CHAU YEE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

___________

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P.:

1. In this case the Applicant applies for leave to appeal against a conviction for incest and against the sentence imposed on him for that offence. He originally drafted his own Grounds of Appeal Thereafter he obtained assistance from the Legal Aid Department and counsel was assigned. Counsel was assigned who had been counsel at the trial, as is the usual course wherever that is possible. Counsel then drafted Perfected Grounds of Appeal. Before the matter came on for hearing there were two further changes of counsel owing presumably to the unavailability of counsel.

2. Counsel who appears today asks us for an adjournment. He says very fairly that he has considered the papers which are before us, including the Grounds of Appeal which have been drafted by other counsel, and he feels himself unable to argue the grounds which have been filed and on the papers he is unable to find any other ground of appeal. It should perhaps be mentioned that the matter was referred to the single judge before counsel had been assigned - an unfortunate matter, because obviously the single judge ought to have had before him any perfected grounds which might be drafted: even when the perfected grounds were drafted and filed, they were not referred to a judge to ascertain whether the papers were still sufficient and whether a different estimate of time was required. However, the position is that counsel is unable to argue the case before us today. He is not able, of course, to say whether upon a perusal of the entire record he would be able to find other grounds of appeal, but it is not the practice to allow papers to be requisitioned simply for the purpose of a fishing expedition. The purpose of the present application, as we understand it, is solely that the counsel who has drafted the Grounds of Appeal should be present to argue them.

                We have considered the grounds as they stand and the papers before us, and, with the utmost respect, we are entirely in agreement with counsel who appears before us today and we do not think that this is a proper case for us to grant an adjournment.

12th April 1985