THE QUEEN v. WONG SECK-HUNG AND ANOTHER

THE QUEEN v. WONG SECK-HUNG AND ANOTHER

The appeal is allowed in part: the 1st appellant's convictions were quashed because his interview evidence only established intention and hearsay about others' acts and there was no admissible evidence that an offer was made to or an advantage paid to the agent; the magistrate could not properly infer an offer or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
THE QUEEN v. WONG SECK-HUNG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Respondent: THE QUEEN; 1st Appellant: Wong Seck-hung; 2nd Appellant: Lee Shui-Cheung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 February 1989
Case Number
HCMA1133/1988
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy Criminal Appeal) / Appellate Judgment Delivered by High Court on Appeal From Magistrates' Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: 1st appellant's convictions and sentences quashed; 2nd appellant's appeal dismissed and convictions upheld.
Legal Topics
Bribery, Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (cap.201), Admissibility of Cautioned Statements, Hearsay, Joint Enterprise, Conspiracy to Defraud, Sufficiency of Evidence
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Anti Corruption Law Evidence Bribery Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (cap.201) Admissibility of Cautioned Statements Hearsay Joint Enterprise +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Wong Seck-hung

1st Appellant

Lee Shui-Cheung

2nd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistracy Criminal Appeal) / Appellate Judgment Delivered by High Court on Appeal From Magistrates' Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the records of interview were admissible and sufficient to convict each appellant
  2. 2 Whether the facts supported an 'offer' within section 9(2)(a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance
  3. 3 Whether there was admissible evidence of payment to the agent (Wong) or that the offer preceded the contracts

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed in part: the 1st appellant's convictions were quashed because his interview evidence only established intention and hearsay about others' acts and there was no admissible evidence that an offer was made to or an advantage paid to the agent; the magistrate could not properly infer an offer or payment sufficient to convict him. The 2nd appellant's convictions were upheld because his signed interview contained direct admissions that he agreed with the agent's proposal to inflate prices and, in respect of the third transaction, admitted making a cash payment; those admissions were properly admissible against him and were sufficient to establish an offer under the...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: 1st appellant's convictions and sentences quashed; 2nd appellant's appeal dismissed and convictions upheld.

Orders

  • Convictions and sentences of 1st appellant Wong Seck-hung set aside and quashed
  • Appeal of 2nd appellant Lee Shui-Cheung dismissed and convictions upheld