|
HCMP 487/2019
[2019] HKCFI 1469
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 487 OF 2019
_______________
| |
IN THE MATTER of an application by Lord David Philip Pannick QC, one of Her Majesty’s Counsel, Barrister of the Honourable Society of Gray’s Inn, to be admitted and enrolled as a barrister of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for the purpose of a particular case |
| |
and |
| |
IN THE MATTER of section 27(4) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance, Cap 159 |
| |
and |
| |
IN THE MATTER of rules 2(4) and 3 of the Barristers (Admission) Rules, Cap 159AA |
_______________
| Before: Hon Poon JA (sitting as an additional judge of the Court of First Instance) in Court |
| Date of Hearing: 23 May 2019 |
| Date of Judgment: 23 May 2019 |
| Date of Reasons for Judgment: 6 June 2019 |
_________________________________
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
_________________________________
Hon Poon JA :
1. On 14 March 2014, the Macau Criminal Court of First Instance convicted Mr Lau Luen Hung, a Hong Kong permanent resident and a well-known and highly successful businessman, in absentia of bribery and money laundering and sentenced him to five years and three months’ imprisonment. Mr Lau’s subsequent appeals were all rejected. Mr Lau complained that his trial and conviction in absentia amounted to a flagrant denial of justice, which were fundamentally unfair. Be that as it may, Mr Lau remains in the eyes of the Macau Courts a fugitive offender escaping justice by staying in Hong Kong.
2. Mr Lau is able to seek refuge in Hong Kong because the current statutory regime for rendition of fugitive offenders established under the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, Cap 503 (“FOO”) and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance, Cap 525 (“MLAO”) does not apply to any parts of the PRC. It follows that Mr Lau is not liable to be rendered to Macau despite his conviction and sentence. However, that might fundamentally change soon.
3. On 26 March 2019, the Chief Executive approved the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 (“the Amendment Bill”) and ordered its introduction into the Legislative Council. In gist, under the Amendment Bill, the Government may enter into special surrender arrangements with a place outside Hong Kong including other parts of the PRC for rendering a fugitive offender pursuant to the statutory regime in the FOO and the MLAO as relevantly modified by the provisions in the Amendment Bill. In short, the express exclusion barring rendition of a person in Hong Kong to other parts of the PRC, including Macau, will be removed should the Amendment Bill become law.
4. Mr Lau was concerned that he might then be rendered to Macau for his conviction and sentence. He therefore on 1 April 2019 commenced judicial review proceedings in HCAL 875/2019 (“the JR Proceedings”), seeking for various declaratory reliefs in respect of the Amendment Bill. The application for leave to commence judicial review was scheduled to be heard by Chow J on 21 June 2019.
5. Mr Lau had already retained a team of local counsel led by Mr Gerard McCoy, SC to represent him in the JR Proceedings. He wished to engage Lord David Phillip Pannick, QC, too. Hence his application for ad hoc admission for the purpose of advising Mr Lau in the JR Proceedings and appearing at the hearing and appeals therefrom. It was opposed by both the Hong Kong Bar Association and Secretary for Justice.[1]
6. On 23 May 2019, after hearing the parties, I allowed the application with the undertaking that the team of local counsel already retained by Mr Lau shall appear with Lord Pannick at the leave hearing on 21 June 2019. I had indicated that I would hand down the reasons for my judgment later.
7. In the course of preparing this Reasons for Judgment, Mr Lau on 29 May 2019 applied to discontinue the JR Proceedings, which was allowed by a consent order dated 31 May 2019. Because of this post-hearing development, the order that I made allowing Lord Pannick’s admission has become wholly academic.
8. In the circumstances, I do not consider it necessary to detail the reasons why I allowed Lord Pannick’s admission. It is sufficient to simply state that the public interest clearly lies in favour of admitting Lord Pannick, an eminent counsel of the highest standing in constitutional law, to assist the court even at the leave stage and should leave be granted, at the substantive hearing and subsequent appeals, if any.
| |
(Jeremy Poon) |
| |
Justice of Appeal |
Mr Gerard McCoy SC, Mr Robert Pang SC, Mr Timothy Parker and Mr Albert N B Wong, instructed by Messrs Sit, Fung, Kwong & Shum, for the applicant
Mr Alexander Stock SC and Mr Martin Ho, instructed by Messrs Kwok, Ng & Chan, for the Hong Kong Bar Association
Ms Ann Lui, instructed by the Department of Justice, for the Secretary for Justice
[1] Although the Secretary for Justice is the putative respondent in the JR Proceedings, she is represented by Ms Ann Lui, an outside counsel, in this application so as to remove any actual or perceived conflict of interests.
|