Attorney General v. Wong Chun-ming

CAAR000002/1974

-----------------

-----------------

Coram: Pickering, J.A., Leonard & Cons, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 4th October, 1977.

-----------------

DECISION

-----------------

Pickering, J.A.:

1. The respondent, a former police officer, pleaded guilty to the offence of corruptly soliciting $1,000, contrary to section 4(2) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201 and, on the 2nd January, 1974 was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment suspended for 12 months. On the 16th January, 1974 the Attorney General applied for leave to apply to the then Full Court for review of sentence under section 81A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221 and on the following day the Chief Justice granted that application. A copy of the application was duly served on the respondent on the 22nd January, 1974 but upon the return date which was 1st February, 1974, the respondent did not attend the court and a warrant was issued for his arrest. Despite what we are told were sustained efforts over periods of two weeks every six months, that warrant was not served until the 1st October, 1977 when the respondent was arrested.

2. The facts of the offence were that around noon of 15th November, 1973 a private car driven by a man called LAI Tai-cheong struck a young boy who was crossing Princess Margaret Road; the respondent, who was attached to the Traffic Office and whose duty it was to make enquiries into traffic accidents, attended the scene and asked Mr. Lai to go to the Traffic Office, Kowloon to make a statement; when Mr. Lai was later interviewed by the respondent at the Traffic Office he was told that he was going to be charged with dangerous driving and "speeding" and that he might be disqualified from driving. Upon Mr. Lai replying that he had not driven with excessive speed and that the boy suddenly shot out in front of his car the respondent told Mr. Lai that it did not matter what he said as the boy was in hospital and he, Mr. Lai, might be disqualified from driving; the respondent then told Mr. Lai that he could cause himself not to be charged if he paid $1,000.

3. It is to be observed that the conviction and sentence in this case took place some few days before the former Full Court said in Attorney General v. LI Yuk-hing⁽¹⁾ that the minimum sentence for corruption in circumstances such as these would usually be a custodial one of 12 months; similarly, the Independent Commission Against Corruption had not yet come into being. I mention these factors because it is necessary for this Court, in considering the Attorney's application, to put itself in the position of the sentencing court at the beginning of 1974. It is fair to say that at that time corruption of this sort was regarded as a very serious offence but although the writing was on the wall in regard to the massive drive which was about to be unleashed upon corruption that writing was by no means as deeply etched as it is today. Bearing that in mind and bearing in mind also that the fact that the offence is now very stale is due only to the action of the respondent in absenting himself from court in February 1974 so that the lapse of time does not detract from the seriousness of the offence, and having regard to the fact that the respondent spent some two months in custody before he was tried in the magistrate's court, we allow the application, set aside the sentence of 12 months' imprisonment suspended for 12 months and substitute a custodial sentence of six months' imprisonment.

Representation:

B.P. Clancy for Crown/applicant.

Respondent in person.

(1) Application for Review No. 3 of 1974.