Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Capacity as public servant

Legal area

Court

3 Jan 2003

HKSAR v. CHOW KAI SHUN, ALEXANDER

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOW KAI SHUN, ALEXANDER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC147/2002

The Court held the judge correctly applied the Kong Kam-piu capacity test and, on the evidence, properly found that the applicant solicited advantages by offering to use confidential and restricted government information and his judgment as an Administrative Officer to provide qualified leads to financial advisers in return for commissions; the trial judge's acceptance of the witnesses' evidence was open on the record and the convictions were therefore upheld.
6 Mar 1998

HKSAR v. LAM TZE YIM

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM TZE YIM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC186/1997

By majority the Court refused leave to appeal: applying the Leonard test approved in Ip Chiu, the majority concluded the trial judge permissibly drew inferences from the proved facts (regular payments, staff knowledge of D1's police status, D1's interventions and his role in the businesses) that the payments were made because of his status and position as a police officer and that the trial judge properly assessed credibility and resolved conflicts; therefore convictions were not shown to be unsafe.
22 Jun 1993

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG KAM HO

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG KAM HO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC286/1993

The Court, on a preliminary view for the purpose of a bail application, found there was no prima facie case that the appeal on counts 1 and 5 would succeed: the distinction between voting as elector and acting as a public servant was not arguably tenable, s22 precluded treating Mr Fung as an accomplice, the challenged conversation evidence was admitted without defence objection and did not show prejudice, and the judge's directions on immunity and corroboration were arguably adequate; accordingly bail pending appeal was refused.
19 May 1977

IP CHIU AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

IP CHIU AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC99/1977

The convictions were quashed because the proved payment related to preventing fabricated future police conduct (planting evidence), which is not abstention from performing an act 'in his capacity as' a public servant; therefore there was no evidence to put appellants on their defence for accepting an advantage under s.4(2) and the convictions were unsafe. Procedural and evidence objections did not justify upholding the convictions, and appellate substitution of a new charge (blackmail) was inappropriate at this stage.
12 Sept 1975

WOO MAIN WAI v. THE QUEEN

Citation

WOO MAIN WAI v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC655/1975

The conviction is upheld because the statutory offence is concerned with the offeror's purpose — a gift offered as a reward or inducement is corrupt even if the public servant had not previously performed services; evidence supported that the offer was an inducement for future acts; and binding Hong Kong Full Court authority establishes that such offers can be given to a public servant in his capacity as such.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. CHOW KAI SHUN, ALEXANDER

HKSAR v. LAM TZE YIM

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG KAM HO

IP CHIU AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

WOO MAIN WAI v. THE QUEEN