RE CHI HING CHUA





----------

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Fuad, V. -P. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. These appeals are from orders made by Mayo, J. on 5th and 17th September 1991 refusing Mr. Anthony Chi Hing Chua leave to apply for judicial review. The appeals are as of right under RSC O.53, r.3 (4).

2. Mr. Chua filed an application for leave to apply for judicial review on 30th August 1991, setting out the reliefs he was seeking in 13 paragraphs. By one of the paragraphs of the notice he sought an order for mandamus directed to the Secretary for the Civil Service which, in view of the time element involved, required to be dealt with urgently. It was in relation to that particular matter that Mayo, J. made his order dated 5th September, refusing leave. Leave in respect of all the other reliefs sought by the application was refused on 17th September. The appeals have now been consolidated and we heard them together.

3. Mr. Chua, who is in his mid-thirties, is employed as a pharmacist in the Department of` Health. He is a B.S. Pharm. and holds an L1.B. degree from the University of London. He has been in the public service since June 1980. It is not possible to understand Mr. Chua's past conduct, or the motives which prompted him to institute these proceedings, without appreciating the role in which he sees himself. He reveals his philosophy in his supporting affidavit and by the stand he has taken in court. He has convinced himself that as a civil servant in the years leading up to 1997 and beyond, his loyalty and accountability should be towards wider and higher local public interest, rather than to narrower colonial governmental interests. It is his view that to make a highly autonomous Hong Kong S.A.R. Government work under the concept of One Country Two Systems, improvement to the Civil Service must now be made. He regards the duty of a pharmacist to be to ensure that medicines taken by the public (including medical gases inhaled) are safe and effective. In his opinion a Government pharmacist, as a servant of the people, has, what he calls "the higher duty", to warn the public and make constructive suggestions for improvement, if he sees that the Government is not behaving properly.

4. Mr. Chua regards himself as "a whisleblower" whose higher duty is to sound a whistle or alarm, drawing attention to instances of abuse or neglect in the organisation to which he belongs, which might threaten the public interest or safety.

5. Mr. Chua refers to the experience of whistleblowers in the USA and how they have been treated. He names three Hong Kong persons who were "arguably whistleblowers" saying that they were "mostly treated by non-renewal of their  contracts." He contends that, on the contrary, the social usefulness of whistleblowers has been recognised in the USA and Britain.

6. As regards Civil Service Regulation 521 (which prohibits the publication of "anything which might reasonably be regarded as of a political or administrative nature" without departmental approval) Mr. Chua's view is that ignoring this regulation for good cause is the best way to bring about necessary reform, and its breach is justified by the higher duty which he owes. He complains that as a direct result of the performance of his higher duty, he has been suppressed by the Government by all kinds of disciplinary and other reprisals. In respect of the matters which are relevant to these appeals, Mr. Chua has submitted petitions to the Governor. He has also written numerous letters to the press, Coroners, the Commissioner for Administrative Complaints, the ICAC, the CAPO and the Commissioner of Customs and Excise.

7. Before we deal with each of the reliefs sought by Mr. Chua, as will be seen, paragraphs 1 to 11 of the notice setting out the reliefs prayed for are all introduced by a reference to an "interim decision" by the Governor dated lst August 1991 made known to Mr. Chua by the Secretary for the Civil Service by his letter dated 19th August 1991. That letter is in the following terms:-

"Please be advised that your petition to the Governor under CR 68 concerning the deferment of your passage over the Efficiency Bar and the disciplinary action taken against you under CR 57 are being processed. A reply will be given to you once a decision on your petition has been made."

8. It is only necessary to state here, that if any question of delay arises for the purposes of applying s.21K (6) of the Supreme Court Ordinance read with O.53, r.4, the relevant date remains the date when grounds for the application first arose and is not extended by combining all the complaints in a petition to the Governor and applying for leave when the Governor's reaction is known.

9. The first relief sought is worded as follows:

" 1. Against the interim decision of H E Governor dated 1 August 1991, as per that of the Secretary for Civil Service dated 19 August 1991, concerning a public interest litigation, the following relief is sought:

An order of mandamus directed to the Attorney General of Hong Kong to re-open the Inquest No. 31/89 concerning the death of Mrs. Shirley Boyde under S20 Coroner's Ordinance, so as to further investigate specifically 'how nitrogen came to be put into an oxygen container' along the line of pharmaceutical safety standard of the whole of the manufacturing process namely United Kingdom Good Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Practice 1983 (hereinunder called GMP)."

10. We mention here that s.20 of the Coroners Ordinance, Cap. 14 gives power to the Attorney General to require a Coroner to reopen an inquiry (inquest) "if it appears to him that further investigation is necessary".

11. The inquest into Mrs. Boyde's tragic death was held between 17th April and 2nd June 1989. The jury's verdict was "Death due to wrong supply of gas to hospital". On 15th February 1990 Barnett, J. refused to make a declaration concerning the conduct of the inquest at the suit of the anaesthetist involved and the Medical Defence Union, a decision which was upheld on appeal to this court on 1st November 1990.

12. In his affidavit, Mr. Chua explains why he had written to the Coroner on 4th May and 12th June 1989 and complains that "even after the inquest was closed the Coroner did not reply or call me." He contends that the Coroner did not properly investigate his written submission while the inquest was proceeding; he had not properly or fully investigated the overall safety standards adopted by the company supplying the oxygen; he had failed in his inquisitorial duty; he had failed to call all relevant witnesses and justice had not been seen to be done because he had allowed the inquest to be adjourned to let the Coroner's officer and Counsel for the oxygen supplying company to discuss a matter in private.

13. Mr. Chua sets out 6 grounds in his affidavit suggesting why he has a locus standi in the matter - he had been treated unfairly by the oxygen company because he received no reply to a written statement he had been invited by them to make; he had also been treated unfairly by the Coroner; he had exercised a civil servant's higher duty by writing to the Coroner and the press; the Attorney General had not acceded to his application to reopen the inquest; a recent tour of the premises of the oxygen company indicated that he could make a useful contribution to the proper inquiry and recent authorities (which he cited) supported a wider view on standing.

14. Mr. Chua thus clearly recognised that he would have to persuade the court that he had a "sufficient interest" in the matter for the purposes of satisfying s. 21K(3) of the Supreme Court Ordinance and O.53, r.3(7), otherwise the court would have no jurisdiction to grant his application. It seems to us, that however broadly and generously the statutory requirement is applied, it is plain, even at this'' threshold stage, that Mr. Chua could not demonstrate that he had a "sufficient interest" for the purposes of the Ordinance and the RSC. On the material before the Court a decision that he had, could not have been sustained.

15. The second relief asked for also concerns an inquest and is in these terms: -

" 2. Against the interim decision of H E Governor dated 1 August 1991, as per that of the Secretary for Civil Service dated 19th August 1991, concerning a public interest litigation, the following relief is sought:

An order of mandamus directed to the learned Coroner to ask the Attorney General of Hong Kong to re-open Inquest No. 40/91NT under S20 Coroner's Ordinance, so as to further investigate the line between the cause of death and a Chinese Proprietary Medicine Tse Dam Dan."

16. From the papers before us, it seems that this inquest concerned the death of a Mr. Cheung Yuk-ping. Mr. Chua wrote to the Coroner on 10th June 1991 referring to certain reports in the South China Morning Post on 29th and 29th May 1991. He gave the Coroner reasons why he was inviting him to ask the Attorney General to direct that the inquest be re-opened or otherwise further "to investigate the link of Tse Kam Dan to the death". The Coroner responded instead to the Director of Health sending him a copy of the record of the proceedings of the inquest. He pointed out that he had expressed his concern at the very high level of mercury found in the blood of the deceased and had indicated his view that the matter might require some investigation particularly as regards Tse Kam Dan, a medicine the deceased had been taking before his death. The Coroner's letter, which was copied to Mr. Chua, concluded:

"The combined effect of the medical/pathological and chemist's evidence were such that I concluded that death arose from natural causes. If any investigation by your Department leads to a different conclusion then the Attorney-General may well wish to exercise his powers under section 20 and for my part I would happily reopen the inquest."

17. Mr. Chua emphasises that although the Coroner himself had discerned that Tse Kam Dan might be linked to the cause of death of the deceased yet, upon request, the Director of Health had not provided "the relevant information to rebut my submission to the learned Coroner."

18. For the reasons we have given in connection with the relief sought touching the inquest into the death of Mrs. Boyde, we have reached the firm conclusion that Mr. Chua did not begin to overcome the preliminary hurdle, even at the threshold stage, of showing that he had a "sufficient interest" for the purposes of the law.

19. By the next four paragraphs in the notice, Mr. Chua seeks a number of declarations. As previously indicated, each paragraph begins with the formula: -

"Against the interim decision of H E Governor dated 1 August 1991, as per that of the Secretary of Civil Service dated 19th August 1991, concerning a public interest litigation, the following relief is sought:"

Then the declarations Prayed for are formulated in this way: -

"[3] (1) A declaration that medical gases fall within the definition of medicine or pharmaceutical product under S2 (1) of the Pharmacy & Poisons Ordinance, Cap. 138, Laws of Hong Kong.

(2) A declaration that medical gases fall within the requirements of the U.K. or W.H.O. Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP).

[4] A. declaration that western dosage forms such as injections and tablets, not properly supported by literature reference, fall within the definition of medicine or pharmaceutical product under S2 (1) of the Pharmacy & Poisons ordinance and are not Traditional Chinese Medicines, even if the ingredients are literally within the exemption of S37 of the said ordinance.

[5] A declaration that refusal to accept the correct views, proffered by a member of the public or a civil servant, is tantamount to maladministration.

[6] (1) A declaration that the Chief Pharmacist's refusal to provide departmental views to the Press on Chinese medicine, coupled with harassment by way of simultaneous issues of messages to the South China Morning Post and its government informant, i.e. myself, that there was a breach of the Civil Service Regulations R521 in publishing the alternative views on Chinese medicine, is tantamount to maladministration.

(2) A declaration that non-disciplined civil servants do have the right to require proper disclosure of the behind-the-door disciplinary actions to the Press."

20. Mr. Chua complains that the Director of Health does not effectively enforce the relevant law so that medical gases are not being effectively controlled and that both he and the Director of Hospital Services have unreasonably allowed certain medical gases to be continuously purchased from a particular company.

21. He says that the Director of Health wrongly interprets ss.2 and 37 of the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance, as they relate to Traditional Chinese Medicine. He suggests how s.37 should be interpreted and applied, and contends that the Government has not carried out its administrative duties under paragraph 4 of the Joint Declaration.

22. Mr. Chua asserts that bad administration is maladministration. The Department of Health, he says, had ignored the correct views of the U.K. Department of Health that medical gases and herbal medicines should be regarded as medicines; the H.K. Department had failed to consult the U.K. Department and had misled the public as to the true interpretation of the law; the Director had abdicated his legal responsibilities to Working Parties in this field and there had been misfeasance of public office by the Director of Health and the Chief Pharmacist. Moreover, the Chief Pharmacist had interfered with press freedom by harassment; he had made the duties of the press more difficult to perform and he had acted contrary to paragraph 3(5) of the Joint Declaration.

23. We mean no disrespect to Mr. Chua when we dispose of his lengthy and elaborate submissions by merely indicating our view that no court exercising its discretion in the manner approved by practice, and laid down by authority by which it is bound, could contemplate granting any of the declarations he seeks. The relief he seeks is wide and flexible but his attempt to invoke it for the present purposes is wholly misconceived.

24. We now turn to consider paragraph 7 of Mr. Chua's notice. It is as follows: -

"7. Against the interim decision of H E Governor dated 1 August 1991, as per that of the Secretary for Civil Service dated 19th August 1991, concerning a public interest litigation, the following forms of relief are sought:

(1) An order of certiorari to remove into this Honourable Court and quash the unfair conviction and biased criticisms handed down against me by the Investigating Committee under Colonial Regulations R57 dismissal hearing.

(2) An order of mandamus directed to the Attorney General of Hong Kong to prosecute a case of victimization of witness, arising from the said R57 proceeding against a trueful Crown witness."

25. Mr. Chua was required to face an investigation into some of his conduct under Colonial Regulation 57. Three charges were laid against him. After a hearing extending over 6 days in September and October 1988, the Committee did not find two of the charges proved. However they felt "duty-bound" to mention that although Mr. Chua had been found not guilty on those charges in terms of misconduct, they had "a lot of reservations about his attitude and behaviour as reflected by these two charges" They found he had shown an "unhelpful and irresponsible attitude which no good civil servant will approve."

26. The charge found proved by the Committee was framed as follows: -

"Charge (B)

Particulars of Charge:

Mr. Anthony Chua Chi-hing wilfully neglected his duty by claiming during the court hearing on 9 February 1987 against Messrs. CHAN Cheong-yin, CHIU Chung-wing and CHIU Chung-hing that he could not remember the circumstances leading to their prosecution thus bringing disrepute to the civil service."

27. These allegations arose out of the following events. On 27 June 1986, Mr. Chua, with a colleague, inspected a supermarket in Shatin. They seized a quantity of Part I poisons and anti-biotics. Mr. Chua took the initial steps leading to the prosecution of three men connected with the supermarket for the illegal possession of the drugs seized. By the time the case came to court, Mr. Chua had been transferred from the Forensic Pharmacy Division to the Castle Peak Hospital. Mr. Chua was required to assist in the prosecution as an officer closely involved with the case, which was due to be heard on 9th February 1987.

28. As soon as Mr. Chua began to give evidence before the court, he swore that he could remember nothing of the circumstances of the case. It was alleged that in the presence of a witness, he had earlier assured the prosecutor that he could remember what had happened. The three accused were acquitted and were given costs.

29. Mr. Chua told the Committee that he had given truthful evidence in court and denied any conversation with the prosecutor in which he said he could remember his involvement in the case. He said that if the prosecutor had conducted his examination-in-chief better his memory might have been revived. He felt he should not he blamed for what had occurred.

30. A verbatim record of the Committee's proceedings was kept, running to 747 pages. The Committee's report is 25 pages in length, and the Committee's findings and conclusions as regards Charge B are contained in 7 paragraphs (21 - 27).

31. On 2nd October 1989 Mr. Chua received a letter from the Secretary of the Civil Service informing him of the finding of the Committee and that the Secretary for the Civil Service, on the advice of the Public Service Commission (and in exercise of the authority delegated to him by the Governor) had directed that he be awarded a severe reprimand under Colonial Regulation 57. A copy of the Committee's report was enclosed.

32. Mr. Chua makes many detailed complaints about these disciplinary proceedings. Summarised, they are that the Committee's inquisitional duty had not been properly performed; that the presiding officer was not seen to be unbiased; that some relevant considerations were misunderstood or disregarded; that some irrelevant considerations were taken into account; that the Chief Pharmacist's views had been preferred, without proof, to his own; some matters had been erased from the verbatim record; that the person who had imposed the punishment of reprimand had not had the Governor's powers lawfully delegated to her, and the victimisation of a witness had been condoned.

33. It is clear that for the purposes of s.21K (6) of the Supreme Court Ordinance and O.53, r.4, the grounds for any application for judicial review in connection with these proceedings arose on 2nd October 1989. Mr. Chua's application for leave was not filed until some 22 months later. We have carefully considered paragraphs 10-14 of Mr. Chua's affidavit where he helpfully sets out all the reasons why he says the court should overlook the delays that have occurred, in so far as they relate to this relief (and the next one, relief No.8) and feel bound to observe that none of them, taken singly or together would allow a court to find "good reasons" for extending the time.

34. We may add that in reaching this conclusion we have taken into account all the material before us concerning the conduct of the Committee and the actions of the Secretary for the Civil Service. The next relief sought is in these terms: -

"8. Against the interim decision of H E Governor dated 1 August 1991, as per that of the Secretary for Civil Service dated 19th August 1991, concerning a public interest litigation, the following forms of relief are sought:

(1) A declaration that the woman police prosecutor is under a duty to inform the court an obvious case of perjury that, prior to entering the witness box, a prosecution witness had assured her that he could remember the case but then moments later told the court that he could not.

(2) A declaration that, in rendering possible coercive police assistance to other government department i.e. the then Medical & Health Department, the police is under a duty to ensure that the arrest is lawfully based and that records be properly made."

35. As far as we can understand this matter, Mr. Chua's complaints arise out of the conduct of the court hearing in February 1987 when he announced that he was unable to recollect the evidence he was expected to give, or even earlier. He now seeks these reliefs by way of judicial review far too late, even if a court could possibly make the declarations he asks for in the proper exercise of its jurisdiction.

36. The relief Mr. Chua claims in paragraph 9 of his notice is in the following terms: -

"9. Against the interim decision of H E Governor dated 1 August 1991, as per that of the Secretary for Civil Service dated 19th August 1991, concerning a public interest litigation, the following forms of relief are sought:

(1) An order of certiorari to remove into this Honourable Court and quash the order of salary increase deferment with effect from 1 September 1989.

(2) A declaration that the unannounced order of salary increase deferment with effect from 1 September 1990 is ultra vires of Civil Service Regulations (CSR) R216. An order of mandamus directed to the Secretary for Civil Service to grant me 'pay leave' under CSR 473(3) to attend this court hearing.

(3) An order of mandamus directed to the Secretary for Civil Service to grant me 'no-pay study leave' under CSR 1012(2) & 1013 to pursue the Postgraduate Certificate in Laws (P.C.LL.) course of the University of Hong Kong."

37. As regards sub-paragraph (1), Mr. Chua received a letter dated 10th August 1989 from the Community Physician informing him that, on the grounds set out, the Department of Health intended to recommend deferment of his passage over the efficiency bar which would otherwise have been due on 1st September 1989. Mr. Chua complains that the Civil Service authorities had acted in breach of their duties to act fairly and in the public interest and, in effect, that his rights as a whistleblower in pursuit of his higher duty had not been recognised. He says that the disrespect and inefficiency of which he had been accused had not been judged by relevant criteria and the adverse Staff Appraisal Reports had been biased and unfair.

38. Whether 10th August or 1st September 1989 is taken as the date when grounds for this part of the application first arose, Mr. Chua has approached the courts far too late in the light of the relevant Ordinance and Rules of Court. Once again, we state our conclusion that none of the reasons given for the delay which has occurred would justify the exercise of the court's discretion to extend time. We would mention here that we have carefully read all the material before us against Mr. Chua's detailed written and oral representations and we detect no grounds upon which Mr. Chua can legitimately complain about the way in which he was treated by his department and the civil service authorities in relation to the deferment of his passage over the efficiency bar.

39. However, there is one matter to which we feel we should refer. Mr. Chua was issued with a formal written warning about his conduct on 19th January 1987. On the next day he wrote the following memorandum to the Chief Pharmacist, copying it to all his fellow pharmacists: -

"WRITTEN WARNING

    I apologise for my series of actions mentioned in your Written Warning under reference and confirm, in accordance with paragraph 5 of the said Written Warning, that I will not appeal against your decision.

2. After reviewing the circumstances, I am satisfied that the issues of PSM, Ward Pharmacist and Pharmacist's Professional Status have been in hands and hereby assure you that your advice will be duly respected"

40. Mr. Chua later (31st March 1987) changed his mind and asked for the warning to be withdrawn. This was refused. According to the relevant regulations, in the absence of any subsequent or related misconduct, this warning should have been formally invalidated after the lapse of one year and Mr. Chua should have been informed in writing that this had happened. In fact he was not informed that the written warning had been invalidated until he received a letter dated 15th June 1990 telling him, inter alia, that a verbal warning issued on 23rd May 1989 would be invalidated with effect from 23rd May 1990. This letter also told him that the written warning (of 19th January 1987) "was invalidated on 19.1.1988". It seems to us that the matter was simply overlooked. We do not see how what occurred can possibly affect the validity of the decision to defer Mr. Chua's passage over the efficiency bar. Nor do we regard it as an indication that he has been unfairly treated.

41. The declaration sought by sub-paragraph (2) relates to a matter mentioned by the Secretary for the Civil Service in his letter to Mr. Chua dated 4th April 1991. The Secretary explained fully why arrangements would be made for a salary adjustment in Mr. Chua's favour with effect from 1st September 1990 because on that date he should, for the reasons given, have progressed to a higher pay scale. The papers show that as a result of this adjustment, Mr. Chua received $7,950 back pay. Apart from delay beyond three months (if the relevant date is 4th April 1991) no court could give Mr. Chua the declaration he seeks in the proper exercise of its discretion. It would serve no useful purpose.

42. The basis for the relief sought in paragraph 9(3) appears to be Chua's assertion that since it was his public duty (based on his concept of higher duty to the people) to warn the public on the lack of drug safety and "the lack of reform of the colonial aspect of the Civil Service", and since he would be an expert witness in the judicial review proceedings, he should have been given paid leave to attend the court hearings. His stated view was that the hearing would be a continuation of the disciplinary hearing under Colonial Regulation 57, for the purposes of which such leave had been granted him. Mr. Chua contends that the refusal to grant him paid leave for this purpose was to impose another disciplinary reprisal in an indirect manner. On the material before us we have no doubt that a court would have no grounds whatever to intervene in this matter.

43. Paragraph 9(4) seeks an order for mandamus against the Secretary for the Civil Service in connection with Mr. Chua's desire to be given "no-pay study leave" so that he can study full-time for the Post Graduate Certificate in Laws at the University of Hong Kong. The Secretary had refused to grant him such leave. Mr. Chua complains that this decision was not based, as it should have been, on the merits of the individual case. It appeared to him that the decision had been dictated by the rigid application of a policy that such leave should be granted only to officers in the legal departments. This was, in his view, "incompatible with the increased reliance on the rule of law towards and beyond 1997. To make Hong Kong highly autonomous, the study of law should not be confined to a few departments." He had only asked for 200 days no pay study leave. He asserts that the motive of the civil service authorities in refusing his request was to secure his indirect dismissal by forcing him to resign.

44. Mr. Chua has not come within measuring distance of persuading us that there are grounds upon which a court could lawfully interfere in judicial review with the discretion exercised by the Secretary for the Civil Service in turning down Mr. Chua's application.

45. Paragraph 10 of Mr. Chua's notice of the reliefs he seeks is in these terms: -

" 10. Against the interim decision of H E Governor dated 1 August 1991, as per that of the Secretary of Civil Service dated 19 August 1991, concerning a public interest litigation, the following relief is sought:

Misfeasance in public office is claimed against the Chief Pharmacists Mr. LI Kwing-yee and Mr. Pang Chi-wai, and their superiors and/or subordinates, who have condoned/connived/assisted in their abuse of powers."

46. It is impossible to understand what relief Mr. Chua is here seeking. In his affidavit he contends that in dealing with the matters he has raised, the Senior Pharmacist, the Chief Pharmacist, the Director of Health and his delegates, the Secretary for Health and Welfare and the Secretary for the Civil Service are each guilty of misfeasance in public office. We do not consider it necessary to say anything more about paragraph 10 except that no court could take cognisance of its contents. The next paragraph of the notice is as follows: -

" 11. Against the interim decision of H E Governor dated 1 August 1991, as per that of the Secretary of Civil Service dated 19 August 1991, concerning a public interest litigation, the following relief is sought:

An order of mandamus directed to the Commissioner of Customs & Excise to investigate the lawfulness, in the Rifapentine case, of the use of one particular Certificate for Clinical Trial/Medicinal Test, issued by the Pharmacy & Poisons Board under R36 (5) of the Pharmacy & Poisons Regulations, Cap.138, Laws of Hong Kong."

47. Mr. Chua, in obedience to his higher duty, is concerned that the unlawful import and sale of a medicine called Rifapentine is inimical to drug safety. He asserts that it should be registered under the law so that its safety, efficacy and quality can be assessed. Mr. Chua explains that he has complained about this to the Commissioner of Customs and Excise, the Governor and to the ICAC. The Commissioner responded to Mr. Chua by his letter of 24th April 1991 stating why, although "a minor technical offence may have been committed" he was not prepared to prosecute, on legal advice. Mr. Chua wrote back on 6th May and the Commissioner responded again on 19th June. His letter concludes: -

"    To summarise, this Department has considered every aspect of this situation thoroughly and has taken legal advice. On the basis of such advice, the decision has been taken not to undertake any prosecution action.

    I have, therefore, nothing to add to my previous letters and, while I regret being unable to help you further, I can only suggest that this correspondence should cease."

48. Apart from the fact that Mr. Chua has not shown that he has a locus standi, on the material before us no court could find grounds to act in judicial review in this matter.

49. In the light of our conclusions regarding the reliefs sought by paragraphs 1-11 of the notice there is no need for us to say anything about paragraph 12 (which seeks interim relief) and paragraph 13 (which seeks damages).

50. During the hearing of the appeals, Mr. Chua asked us to give him leave to apply for three further orders of mandamus, two further declarations and one order of certiorari. These are mentioned in a letter dated 20th November 1991 addressed to the Chief Justice. Mr. Chua headed his letter "Suppression of Freedom of Speech by the sub justice rule" and it was written despite the fact that he was asked by the Registrar in his letter of 8th November not to write personal letters to the Chief Justice while his case was still before the courts. Mr. Chua sent copies of his letter to the Governor, members of the Legislative Council, the two Universities, the two Polytechnics and to the press.

51. It appears to us that the new reliefs Mr. Chua seeks concern events which occurred after the hearings before Mayo, J. in the High Court. The hearing of these appeals is not the appropriate occasion for a consideration of the question whether or not leave to apply for judicial review should be granted in respect of the further matters raised.

52. After hearing Mr. Chua, and considering all the documentary material he has so meticulously prepared and presented, we entertain no doubt that leave to apply for judicial review was rightly refused in respect of all the reliefs sought by his application of 30th August 1991.

53. We therefore dismiss the appeals.