HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN

CACC233/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 233 OF 2013

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO. 182 OF 2012)

____________

____________

____________________

DECISION ON COSTS

____________________

Hon Lunn VP (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.  By our Judgment delivered on 30 October 2015, having granted the appellant leave to appeal on one ground of appeal only against conviction, we dismissed the appeal against conviction. We refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

2.  In face of an indication by Mr Perry QC that the prosecution would seek an order for costs, in the event that the appeals were refused, we gave directions in our Judgment for a timetable for the service of written submissions in support of and opposition to such an application.

3.  By written submissions filed with the Court on 9 November 2015, pursuant to section 13 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance, Cap. 492 the prosecution sought an order for costs of the appeals. Although the directions of the Court required service of written objections to that application to be filed at an earlier date finally, on 20 January 2016, the appellant, now acting in person, filed written objections to the application.

4.  The appellant’s application for legal aid, apparently made on 4 December 2015, was refused by the Legal Aid Department on 8 January 2016, inter-alia, on the ground that the Department was not satisfied “…that your financial resources do not exceed the limits specified in section 5 of the Legal Aid Ordinance”.  At the hearing of the appeal the appellant was represented by two leading counsel and a junior counsel.  The appellant has not provided the court with any information as to his inability to pay an order of costs.

5.  In his written submissions, having averted to specific pieces of evidence, the appellant contended that the evidence led by the prosecution at trial was not strong.

6.  By our Judgment, dated 25 January 2016, we refused the appellant’s application that we certify, pursuant to section 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, that points of law of great and general importance, identified in five questions, were involved in our Judgment.

7.  Although we granted the appellant leave to appeal against conviction, in dismissing the appeal we stated that we were satisfied that there were no merits in the appeal.  We refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

Conclusion

8.  In those circumstances, we are satisfied that it is appropriate to and we do make an order of costs of the appeal in favour of the prosecution, with a certificate for two counsel, to be taxed if not agreed.