HKSAR v. HUI RAFAEL JUNIOR , also known as HUI SI-YAN RAFAEL AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. HUI RAFAEL JUNIOR , also known as HUI SI-YAN RAFAEL AND OTHERS

The judge applied the Galbraith/Li Fook-shiu standard: on the paper evidence a reasonable jury properly directed could infer that (a) the HK$4.125m payment and related conduct could be a corrupt sweetener rather than a genuine bonus, so D3's discharge on Counts 3 and 4 was refused; and (b) diary entries, involvement in termination and rental/transactional arrangements together with the routing of funds provided sufficient prima facie evidence to justify amending the indictment to join D3 to Count 5 and to join D2 and D3 to Count 7 (with consequential amendments to Count 8).

Citation
HKSAR v. HUI RAFAEL JUNIOR , also known as HUI SI-YAN RAFAEL AND OTHERS
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Defendant: HUI Rafael Junior (also known as HUI Si-yan Rafael); 2nd Defendant: KWOK Ping-kwong Thomas; 3rd Defendant: KWOK Ping-luen Raymond; 4th Defendant: CHAN Kui-yuen (also known as Thomas CHAN); 5th Defendant: KWAN Francis Hung-sang (also known as Francis KWAN)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 February 2014
Case Number
HCCC98/2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Corruption/misconduct in Public Office and Conspiracy / Pre Trial Applications: Indictment Amendment Under S.23(1) and Discharge Application Under S.16 (hearing on 20 21 Jan 2014; Judgment 13 Feb 2014)
Outcome
D3's application for discharge on Counts 3 and 4 refused; prosecution's application to amend the indictment allowed (Counts 5 and 7 amended and consequential amendments to Count 8 permitted).
Legal Topics
Misconduct in Public Office, Conspiracy, Indictment Amendment, Discharge/no Case to Answer, Prima Facie Test, Circumstantial Evidence and Inferences
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Procedure Anti Corruption Law Public Integrity Misconduct in Public Office Conspiracy Indictment Amendment +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

HUI Rafael Junior (also known as HUI Si-yan Rafael)

1st Defendant

KWOK Ping-kwong Thomas

2nd Defendant

KWOK Ping-luen Raymond

3rd Defendant

CHAN Kui-yuen (also known as Thomas CHAN)

4th Defendant

KWAN Francis Hung-sang (also known as Francis KWAN)

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Corruption/misconduct in Public Office and Conspiracy / Pre Trial Applications: Indictment Amendment Under S.23(1) and Discharge Application Under S.16 (hearing on 20 21 Jan 2014; Judgment 13 Feb 2014)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a prima facie case against D3 on Counts 3 and 4 (misconduct in public office/conspiracy) sufficient to refuse discharge under s.16
  2. 2 Whether the indictment should be amended under s.23(1) to add D3 to Count 5 and to add D2 and D3 to Count 7 (with consequent amendments to particulars and Count 8)
  3. 3 What test applies to applications to amend indictments and to discharge applications (Galbraith standard, Li Fook-shiu)

Ratio Decidendi

The judge applied the Galbraith/Li Fook-shiu standard: on the paper evidence a reasonable jury properly directed could infer that (a) the HK$4.125m payment and related conduct could be a corrupt sweetener rather than a genuine bonus, so D3's discharge on Counts 3 and 4 was refused; and (b) diary entries, involvement in termination and rental/transactional arrangements together with the routing of funds provided sufficient prima facie evidence to justify amending the indictment to join D3 to Count 5 and to join D2 and D3 to Count 7 (with consequential amendments to Count 8).

Court Disposition

D3's application for discharge on Counts 3 and 4 refused; prosecution's application to amend the indictment allowed (Counts 5 and 7 amended and consequential amendments to Count 8 permitted).

Orders

  • Refuse discharge of 3rd defendant on Counts 3 and 4 under s.16 Criminal Procedure Ordinance
  • Allow amendment of indictment under s.23(1) to join 3rd defendant to Count 5