|
CACV000377/2002
CACV 377/2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 377 OF 2002
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NOS. 1595 OF 2001 AND 1596 OF 2001)
____________________________________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
YAU KWONG MAN |
Applicants |
|
LAI HUNG WAI |
|
|
|
|
|
AND |
|
|
|
|
|
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY |
Respondent |
_______________________________
Coram: Hon Stock JA, Le Pichon JA and Ma JA in Court
Date of Hearing: 2 July 2003
Date of Judgment: 2 July 2003
_______________
J U D G M E N T
_______________
Hon Stock JA (giving the judgment of the Court):
1 We have decided that the appropriate course is to dismiss the appeal. The appeal is, as counsel on both sides now acknowledge, academic. The effect of the declaration granted by Hartmann J is to negate the minimum terms set in the case of these applicants. That being so, there arises no practical point in the remaining challenges. It matters not that there may exist another reason in law that the power of the Chief Executive to set minimum terms was unconstitutional. Nor does the constitutionality of section 12(2) of the Long-term Prison Sentences Review Ordinance survive as a live issue in this case because, by reason of the judgment below, the minimum terms to which that section refers do not, in the cases of these applicants, survive. Nor is it for this Court to address the legality of such review procedure as may now obtain; or to set fresh minimum terms.
2 Mr Dykes seeks leave to withdraw the appeal. We do not in the event think that that is an appropriate course. The fact is that the appeal is misconceived for the reasons which we have provided, and we see no circumstances in reality in which it would be revived. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. It should, however, be made clear that we have heard no argument as to the merits of the grounds which were advanced.
3 There will be no order as to costs. The respondent gave no intimation until delivery of the skeleton argument that the point, that the appeal was academic, was to be taken; and even then the respondent did so in relation to one of the grounds only. Indeed, the Respondent's Notice which was issued served to convey the impression that the issues raised were live issues.
| (Frank Stock) |
(Doreen Le Pichon) |
(Geoffrey Ma) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
Representation:
Mr Philip Dykes SC, leading Mr Paul Harris and Mr Ivan Wong, instructed by Messrs Fung and Fung for the Applicants
Mr Michael Blanchflower SC instructed by the Department of Justice for the Respondent
|