6 Dec 2011
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal correctly held that the District Court's inference that the respondent knew the payment would be a bribe was not the only or an irresistible inference; the trial judge failed to identify evidence to support that specific knowledge and the threshold of substantial and grave injustice for leave was not met.
28 Sept 2011
The Court refused leave to appeal: the trial judge's findings that the first applicant, an experienced administrator, knowingly conspired to offer corrupt payments were supported by overwhelming primary facts (including retention of suspension notices and his central role), the inference of bribery was the only reasonable inference, and the sentence of three years was not manifestly excessive given the need for deterrence in corruption and associated fraud offences.
12 Sept 2000
The convictions and sentences were upheld because the Summary of Facts established that the employee's nomination and acceptance of reward were acts in relation to her principal's business under the statutory test and the guilty pleas were not nullities; the magistrate acted within sentencing discretion in imposing 3 months' imprisonment.