CHAN MEI YIU, PADDY AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

CACV 172/2010, CACV 173/2010, CACV 174/2010,
AND CACV 175/2010

CACV 172/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 172 OF 2010

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 16 OF 2007)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

________________________

________________________

(Heard Together)

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Kwan JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

1.  On 8 May 2012, we gave judgment dismissing four appeals for the reasons given in the judgment of Fok JA. The appellants seek leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal, pursuant to section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, on the ground that the questions involved in the intended appeal are ones which, by reason of their great or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

2.  Five questions were formulated in each of the Notices of Motion. I do not propose to set them out. They correspond to issues 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 as set out in paragraphs 32 to 36 of the judgment of Fok JA. The reasons for deciding each of these issues against the appellants appear in paragraphs 37 to 117 of the judgment.

3.  Mr McCoy, SC submitted that the five questions raised are of great or public importance, as the appeal is concerned with the appellants’ challenge to the propriety of the application for and the issue and execution of search warrants pursuant to the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance, Cap 525. Even if the questions as framed might be of great or public importance, I am not satisfied on the merits that there are reasonable prospects of success in any of the grounds advanced in respect of the five questions.

4.  The only new legal argument of Mr McCoy is his reliance on the New Zealand case of Dotcom v AG [2012] NZHC 1494, which was decided after we handed down our judgment. But as submitted by Mr Grossman, SC, this case does not help the appellants.

5.  This is not an appropriate case to grant leave to appeal on the ground that the questions involved are of great general or public importance. Nor is there any exceptional reason why leave should be granted on the “or otherwise” limb. I would dismiss each of the Notices of Motion with costs to the respondents.