Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Accepting an advantage

Legal area

Court

16 Dec 2004

HKSAR v. NG SHIP PING

Citation

HKSAR v. NG SHIP PING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC364/2004

The Court upheld the sentencing judge's exercise of discretion: loss of long service payment was properly disregarded as mitigation given the applicant's prolonged and deliberate breach of trust; the discounts for guilty plea and time in custody abroad were within judicial discretion and not improperly generous given the applicant's conduct including efforts to avoid extradition; the total sentence of two years and two months is not manifestly excessive and leave to appeal is dismissed.
6 May 2004

HKSAR v. LOI HONG QUAN

Citation

HKSAR v. LOI HONG QUAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC464/2002

The Court held that the proven agreement to conceal a material defect and remedial works from the Buildings Department, developer and consultant amounted to a conspiracy to defraud; the appellant was shown to have acted dishonestly and to have accepted advantages with a corrupt state of mind; charges 4 and 5 could be amended without injustice and, despite duplicity in charges 6 and 7, the proviso applied and convictions were safe; the appeal was dismissed.
21 Mar 2003

HKSAR v. CHAN PA CHING

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN PA CHING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1018/2002

The magistrate properly assessed the sole prosecution witness, found his evidence credible and the inconsistencies immaterial; those factual findings were supported by the evidence and therefore the appellate court must not disturb the conviction; appeal dismissed.
19 Sept 1997

HKSAR v. CHIU SIN HIM

Citation

HKSAR v. CHIU SIN HIM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA16/1997

The appellant's recorded statements and admissions provided evidence from which the magistrate could properly conclude that he believed he was accepting the $18,000 as a reward for helping secure the lifeguard contract, thereby satisfying s.9(1)(a); accordingly the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.
4 Oct 1995

THE QUEEN v. CHAN HO LUN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN HO LUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA674/1995

Given the appellant was represented and the magistrate complied with the mandatory requirement to read and explain the amended charge, the magistrate had no duty to solicit applications under s.27(3)(b)&(c); the subsequent review that discharged the bribery charge did not prejudice the appellant's decision to give evidence under s.26; and the tape playback issue was not pursued by defence counsel, so no trial irregularity was established — appeal dismissed.
9 May 1995

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. BOW KI LUN and Another

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. BOW KI LUN and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR4/1995

The Court allowed the Attorney General's application, holding that the trial judge had under-weighted the gravity of the corrupt conduct and wrongly accorded mitigating credit for cautioned statements later recanted; the Court set and applied clear starting points for sentencing (4 years for the 1st respondent reduced to 3 years; 2 years for the 2nd respondent on offering charges reduced to 20 months and 6 months on false accounting reduced to 4 months to be served consecutively, totaling 24 months) and directed variation of the sentences accordingly.
29 Jul 1994

R. v. CHAN KAM WAH

Citation

R. v. CHAN KAM WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA503/1994

The magistrate did not err: a prior guilty plea and admitted facts by a co-accused do not automatically prejudice a later trial; the magistrate properly assessed the uncorroborated accomplice evidence together with other evidence (proprietor's evidence, admitted facts and interview record), applied appropriate cautions, correctly treated hearsay as explanatory, and properly used lies in interview only to assess credibility; accordingly the conviction was safe and the sentence proportionate and upheld.
18 Nov 1993

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG CHI KWAN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG CHI KWAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA594/1993

Where the Crown proved the receipt of substantial funds into a joint account and the accused's explanations in his cautioned interview were disbelieved, coupled with conduct (concealment of passbook) supportive of self‑benefit, the magistrate was justified in finding the money had been accepted as an advantage; the six month immediate sentence was within principled discretion under s.3.
14 Nov 1990

THE QUEEN v. HEUNG CHI KEUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. HEUNG CHI KEUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC230/1990

The trial judge failed to give adequate discount for the first applicant's guilty plea and significant assistance by giving evidence; an 18-month discount off the 4.5-year starting point was appropriate for the 1st applicant (reducing conspiracy sentence to 3 years) and a 12-month discount was appropriate for the 2nd applicant (reducing sentence to 2 years 6 months); the 3rd applicant's appeal was dismissed because no comparable mitigating factors applied.
21 Nov 1986

THE QUEEN v. KUNG YING-MAN, SPENCER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. KUNG YING-MAN, SPENCER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC513/1986

Given the applicant's high position of trust, the quantum of money (approximately HK$315,000), the sustained nature of the conduct and the need for deterrence, the sentence of 18 months imprisonment (to run concurrently on 13 charges) is not manifestly excessive and the application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.