HKSAR v. YUEN LAI KWAN, ABBY

CACC 278/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 278 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 589 OF 2001)

________________

_______________

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

Hon Yeung JA (giving judgment of the Court):

1. On 8 November 2002, we dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal against conviction on 2 charges relating to copyright offence.

2. By way of a Notice of Motion dated 23 December 2002, the applicant has asked this court to certify that a point of law of great and general importance is involved in the decision dismissing her application to enable her to seek leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

3. Section 33(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance provides that "an application to the Court (meaning the Court of Final Appeal) shall be made within 28 days from the date of the decision of the Court of Appeal or the Court of First Instance, as the case may be."

4. The Practice Direction for criminal appeals to the Court of Final Appeal issued by the Chief Justice makes it clear that applications to this court for a certificate that their decision involved a point of law of great and general importance should be made, "immediately after the judgment is given from which the appeal is to be brought."

5. This application is out of time.

6. In any event, the applicant has not formulated what is the point of law of great and general public importance that we should certify.

7. In the Notice of Motion itself, the point of law is said to be "a trial devoid of conscience." In the supporting documents with the titles, "Striving against Adversity, Cherishing Life, (Biography of Abby Yuen)" and "When will miscarriage of Justice be stopped?", the applicant set out her family history and the hardship suffered by her and the family arising out the convictions. She also repeated her complaints about the way her counsel defended her at the trial, the untruthful and unreliable witnesses for the prosecution, the lack of proper and accurate interpretation service and the lack of proper disclosure of relevant documents by the prosecution.

8. In her oral submission, the applicant asks this court whether there is any law requiring an administrative manager to check copyright matters; who was her employer at the material time and whether she had any intention to commit the offences.

9. Most of the complaints had already been made in the earlier application and had been dealt with. There is no point of law involved, let alone point of law of great and general public importance.

10. The same can be said about what the applicant emphasizes today. What she says to us is not relevant to the issue which calls for our decision.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, we decline to certify.