Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Accepting advantage

Legal area

Court

9 Feb 2021

香港特別行政區訴馮永業

Citation

[2021] HKCA 143
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC295/2019

The Court refused leave because the evidence supported the trial judge's finding that the applicant knew the giver's position in Heli Union and nonetheless wilfully failed to disclose or avoid the conflict when handling Heli Union's applications; that deliberate nondisclosure met the wilfulness and seriousness elements of misconduct in public office, and the trial judge's credibility findings and inferences were open on the evidence, making the conviction safe.
9 Jul 2014

香港特別行政區訴鄧偉明

Citation

香港特別行政區訴鄧偉明
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC54/2014

The bail application was dismissed because the applicant failed to show sufficient grounds for an appeal on the second group of offences; any shortcomings in the trial judge's treatment of the first group did not suffice to meet the threshold for bail, and the prosecutorial error affected only one of four documents in the second group while the others were lawfully charged.
13 Apr 2000

HKSAR v. WONG PUI SHAM

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG PUI SHAM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC272/1999

The Court quashed convictions on counts 2 and 3 because material weaknesses (questionable provenance of ICAC notes, timing inconsistencies, and a plausible alternative source for the leak) left a lurking doubt as to safety of those convictions; the conviction on count 1 was upheld because it was independently supported by evidence and not tainted by those weaknesses.
22 Apr 1998

HKSAR v. LUK WAI LUN

Citation

HKSAR v. LUK WAI LUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA188/1998

The Magistrate lawfully applied Section 9 and Section 12 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, correctly treated private‑sector bribery as seriously affecting the public interest, and exercised sentencing discretion within permissible bounds; the additional mitigating factors did not warrant reduction of the concurrent six‑month sentences, so the appeal is dismissed.
1 Jul 1996

THE QUEEN v. FU JIH

Citation

THE QUEEN v. FU JIH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA389/1996

The magistrate's findings that the China trip constituted an advantage, that the Appellant initiated the trip and solicited payment, and that the payment was given because of his official position were supported by legitimate inferences from the evidence; the inspection request forms were unproven hearsay and did not establish an alibi, so the convictions were properly upheld.
7 Aug 1991

THE QUEEN v. MAK CHIU MING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. MAK CHIU MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC561/1990

Application for leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge's credibility findings were supported by corroborative evidence (recordings and undercover officer), the solicitation was properly found to be for the purpose of preventing demolition, and the convictions were not unsafe or unsatisfactory.
29 Mar 1990

THE QUEEN v. CHAN KOON KWOK ARTHUR

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN KOON KWOK ARTHUR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC438/1989

The Court held the trial judge properly assessed the evidence, including testimony of witnesses granted immunity, and that uncontradicted evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the appellant's legal submissions (that subsection (a) could not be proved without proof of subsection (b) and that absence of proof of employer receipt vitiated convictions) were rejected; accordingly there was no basis to grant leave and the convictions were safe and must be affirmed.
14 Jul 1989

THE QUEEN v. PAUL KIANG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. PAUL KIANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC243/1989

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court concluded that existing authority (Chung Fat-ming and R v Tsou) correctly interprets 'otherwise on account of' to include general goodwill/'keeping sweet' payments; the trial judge was entitled to reject the applicant's explanations and to find the payments were advantages accepted on account of favours related to his employment under s.9(1)(b).
9 Jul 1983

THE QUEEN v. NG YIU-KAI

Citation

THE QUEEN v. NG YIU-KAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC721/1983

Major, material inconsistencies between the principal prosecution witnesses rendered the convictions on charges A (soliciting) and B (accepting) unsafe; magistrate's reliance on s.25 in relation to the soliciting charge was erroneous but immaterial to the reasoning; the third charge lacked evidential support that the letter was removed from prison; therefore convictions on A, B and C were quashed and sentences set aside.
15 Mar 1976

HO YUM-YING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

HO YUM-YING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC233/1976

Given the particular facts — loans from a departmental colleague, prompt repayment in most cases, personal exigencies, long public service and absence of departmental connection with the lender — the Court allowed the appeals to the extent that convictions should not be recorded; in Criminal Appeal No.219 the fine was set aside and to be refunded. The magistrate's sentencing discretion is subject to appellate review and should be exercised having regard to these mitigating factors.