HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG

HCMA 619/2012
HCMA 620/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 619 and 620 OF 2012

(ON APPEAL FROM KCPS 5 & 6 OF 2012)

____________

(Heard Together)

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. This judgment covers two appeals.  In the first, HCMA 619/2012, the Notice of Appeal reads:

“I, CHEUNG Kin Chung, of Room 420 Hung Ngok House, Choi Hung Estate, Kowloon do hereby give you notice that it is my intention to appeal to a judge of the Court of First Instance of Hong Kong against a determination on August 27, 2012 by Mr Peter LAW, a Magistrate at the said court for my earlier Information, applied on Aug. 10, 2012, involving three Housing Dept. staff Defendants. And that the general grounds of such appeal are that the Magistrate was biased against me and that the decision has caused injustice by violating the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance resulting in an unfair hearing.”

The Notice of Appeal in the second appeal, HCMA 620/2012 is identical except that the reference is to 23 August 2012 rather than to 10 August 2012.

2. The Magistrate’s reasons for the refusal the subject-matter of each appeal read:

“1. The applicant on 2 different occasions applied for private summons under s. 8 of the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap. 227) against 3 Housing Department officers for attempt to do an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice, I refused his application and he now appeals against my decision.

2. The first application (KCPS 5) was alleging the potential 3 Defendants, being a housing manager, assisting housing manager and housing officer respectively did not allow him to view and retrieve the CCTV footage showing the incident occurred on 15 August 2012 as he claimed a female security of the public estate he was residing (i) displaying unfriendly facial expression to him; (ii) failure to show good conduct to him as promised by her superior and (iii) failure to dial 999 for him upon his request as he was being assaulted by another male. The second application (KCPS 6) was alleging the same potential 3 Defendants for not allowing him to view and retrieve the CCTV footage of another incident he claimed occurred on the following day (16 August) which another female security making threatening facial expression to him and in breach of the promise by her supervisor to show good conducts and greeting him whenever he returns home.

3.   I turned him down as the allegations did not constitute any criminal offence at all as there was nothing to suggest the CCTV had captured anything relevant nor capture anything at all.  Furthermore, any failure to be co-operative and render assistance did not constitute any offence.  There was no good cause to issue a summons of this sort.”

3. It is obvious that the Appellant feels strongly about this matter, but I find no basis on which I can properly interfere with the Magistrate’s decision.

4. In the result, both appeals are dismissed.