Attorney General v. Cheng Tuck Yung
Read the full judgment text of CAAR 15/1975 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. This is an application by the Attorney General for review of six sentences passed upon the Respondent in respect of offences under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. There were three incidents and six charges, two charges relation to each incident. The charges were in each case, although not so stated in the information, soliciting a bribe and receiving a bribe. The amount actually involved in the three incidents was not very large: it was $1,200. The $200 in the last of the incidents (but
|
CAAR000015/1975 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) APPLICATION FOR REVIEW NO. 15 OF 1975 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins & McMullin, JJ. Date of Judgment: 29th July 1975. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Huggins, J. : 1. This is an application by the Attorney General for review of six sentences passed upon the Respondent in respect of offences under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. There were three incidents and six charges, two charges relation to each incident. The charges were in each case, although not so stated in the information, soliciting a bribe and receiving a bribe. The amount actually involved in the three incidents was not very large: it was $1,200. The $200 in the last of the incidents (but first in the charges) was recovered when the Respondent was arrested. It is contended on behalf of the Attorney General that the sentences of six moths' imprisonment in respect of each incident consecutive, making eighteen months in all, was in itself inadequate and that it was wrong in principle to suspend the sentences. 2. We take the view that it was wrong to suspend the sentences. We are much indebted to Miss Leong for her very careful address to us on this matter. The learned magistrate was concerned at the fact that this was a fire officer of long experience, of very good record, who was going to lose a very great deal. This, of course, is all true, but as has been said on a number of occasions high responsibility and high position go together and the advantages which high rank receives must necessarily be lost if a person in that high rank gets into trouble. We cannot allow the implication that somebody who is of high rank will receive a lesser sentence than somebody of low rank because he is going to lose more. We take into account all that has been said to us, and all that was said in the lower court, about the good service of this Respondent. Nevertheless we think that what has been said in past cases does require - and the circumstances of this case require - that there shall be an immediate sentence of imprisonment. On the other hand we are of opinion that a total sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment was anyway excessive. Having regard to all the circumstances, we think that had the sentence imposed in the first instance been a sentence of a total of twelve months' imprisonment that might well have been appropriate. However, having regard to the fact that this is a review and not the original sentence we think that justice will be done if for the sentences of six months' imprisonment consecutive in respect of each incident we substitute sentences of nine months' imprisonment concurrent in respect of each of these incidents. We so order. 29th July 1975. Representation: |