Documers Ao. 13.
THE CHƯNG SAU NAM CASE.
ANOTHER APPEAL BY BIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT.
At the Full Court yesterday. Bir Francis Piggott made an application for special leave to appeal to the Privy Council in connection with the decision of the Full Court in the Chung Sau Nam C850. He also applied for stay of sur- render, pending the appeal.
At the outset of his remarks Sir Francia called attention to section 2 of the new rules for appeals to Privy Council, and said that he appealed under that section in connection with the extradition of Chung Bau Nar. The section laid it down that an appeal could be made where the question involved was of great general and public importance. That case, be contended, came under that cate gory. The petition had been filed and it had been supported by affidavit. The form of the petition had been adopted according to the form recently used; it set out a resumé of the arguments, and a resumé of the decision of the Court on the point, and it also ventured to suggest that decisions of the Court on certain points were not accurate in law or in fact. Sir Francis was about to refer to the Counsel retained by the Chinese Government,” wbon-
The Chief Justice intimated that they did not, and never had, recognised the Chinese Government in connection with the matter. He also called Sir Francia' attention to two paragraphs in the petition which neither his learned brother nor himself could assent to. They wished it to be borne in mind that they did not know anything about the Chinese Govern- ment in the matter at all.
An argument ensued on this point, and Sir Francis eventually remarked that he would represent the view he took of that matter to the Privy Council. He merely desired to inform his learned friends of his intention in that direction.
The Chief Justice asked Counsel to confine himself to his appeal, and also asked him to delete, or alter, the two paragraphs which he had called attention to in the petition.
The Attorney-General interrupted with regard to the point raised by Sir Francis that Counse! on the other side were retained, and that the retaining fees had been paid, by the Chinese Government. The Counsel who had appeared on the other side had appeared for the Crown. and where a solicitor had assisted the Crown Bolicitor it had been at the request of the Crown Solicitor. His friend should know that it was a very common practice, not perhaps so much there as in other countries, for the Attorney-General to be assisted by other Counsel. Even in Hongkong there were cases where it was impossible for the Attorney-General to appear in person, and it was a common practice for Counsel to appear on his behalf. That matter did not seem to him
the to have the slightest bearing on question at all.
Sir Francie Piggott then proceeded to deal with the interpretation of the Order- in-Council, and the "old appeal" to Privy Council relating only to civil suite of action. He also referred to the Ibrahim case, and went on to submit that extradi- tion cases were always of great importance, and when they came under habeas corpuA they had the decision of a Civil Court, Although it was a criminal matter. The question which had to go to Privy Coun cil was the judgment on the Court on the question raised by the issue of the writ
Under the new rules! of habeas corpus.
85
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.