R. v. CHAN WAH TAT and Another

R. v. CHAN WAH TAT and Another

The convictions were upheld because the evidence established that City Drainage had dealings with the Government, A2 fell within the statutory ambit as a supervising government engineer, the payments were proved and the explanations for them were rejected by the magistrate whose credibility findings were entitled to deference; alleged improper use of A1's statement against A2 was not established.

Citation
R. v. CHAN WAH TAT and Another
Parties
Respondent: THE QUEEN; 1st Appellant: CHAN WAH TAT; 2nd Appellant: HAU LO FAT
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 July 1995
Case Number
HCMA28/1995
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Bribery, Prevention of Bribery Ordinance S8(1), Prevention of Bribery Ordinance S3, Appeal Against Conviction, Evidence and Credibility, Sub Contractor Dealings
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Anti Corruption Public/administrative Law Bribery Prevention of Bribery Ordinance S8(1) Prevention of Bribery Ordinance S3 Appeal Against Conviction Evidence and Credibility +1 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE QUEEN

Respondent

CHAN WAH TAT

1st Appellant

HAU LO FAT

2nd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payments from A1 to A2 amounted to corrupt payments under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether A1 had dealings with the Government through a department, office or establishment so as to attract s8(1)
  3. 3 Whether A1's cautioned statements were improperly used against A2 and whether any such use vitiated the convictions

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions were upheld because the evidence established that City Drainage had dealings with the Government, A2 fell within the statutory ambit as a supervising government engineer, the payments were proved and the explanations for them were rejected by the magistrate whose credibility findings were entitled to deference; alleged improper use of A1's statement against A2 was not established.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • appeal dismissed
  • convictions affirmed