The Attorney General v. Yau Ying-hon
Read the full judgment text of CAAR 19/1975 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The respondent in this case was employed in the Public Service as a Surveying Assistant (Engineering) and supervisory staff in respect of work being carried out on the Airport Tunnel Road, Kai Tak.
|
CAAR000019/1975 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) APPLICATION FOR REVIEW NO. 19 OF 1975 -----------------
Coram: Briggs, C.J., McMullin & Leonard, JJ. Date of Judgment: 11th September, 1975. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The respondent in this case was employed in the Public Service as a Surveying Assistant (Engineering) and supervisory staff in respect of work being carried out on the Airport Tunnel Road, Kai Tak. 2. The contractor for this work was Messrs. Paul Lee and Company Limited. Their general foreman at the site was one CHAN Hoi-ming and he bribed the respondent to favour this Company by giving him a monthly bribe of $1,000. 3. The respondent pleaded guilty to nine charges of bribery under section 4(2)(c) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap. 201). The magistrate fined the respondent a total of $5,000 and ordered him to repay the amount of the bribes, i.e. $9,000, to the Crown by instalments. 4. In passing sentence, the magistrate referred, in intemperate language, to the fact that the man, CHAN Hoi-ming, the company and the directors of that company, have not been prosecuted. Mr. Penlington, who appeared for the Crown informed the court that certain matters were still under investigation. 5. For the reasons given in Application for Review No.21 of 1975, which was dealt with by the court on the same day as the present case, we considered that the sentence of the magistrate was wrong in principle. 6. This court has repeatedly stated that the offence bribery merits an immediate custodial sentence in all but the rarest of case. And we do not think that the present case is one in which a non-custodial sentence should be passed. 7. In the event, the sentence of the fine of $5.000 in remitted and the sentence of three months is substituted therefor. The sentence will run from August 13th, 1975 which was the date of the sentence in the court below. The order for repayment of the $9.000 will stand.
Representation: Penlington for A.G./Applicant. Nimatullah (Edmund Cheung & Co.) for Respondent. |