Read the full judgment text of CAAR 000001/1999 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 30 June 1999 before Stuart-Moore VP, Mayo JA, Keith JA.
Criminal law – bribery – Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap 201) s.9(2)(a) – offering advantage to agent – sentencing – review of sentence – community service order – immediate imprisonment – deterrence – exceptional circumstances – Sentencing – whether community service order appropriate for corruption offences – partnership of cargo packing company – private sector agent – D1 instigated bribery exploiting respondents' economic dependence – bribes of $0.30 per cubic foot totalling $82,273 over several years – respondents pleaded guilty – Whether community service orders are appropriate for offences of offering an advantage to an agent contrary to section 9(2)(a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance – Held: No; even a first offender must usually expect a deterrent sentence almost invariably involving immediate imprisonment unless wholly exceptional circumstances exist – Whether magistrate erred in finding exceptional circumstances justifying community service orders – Held: Yes; personal backgrounds, guilty pleas, and risk of economic loss are not factors that could justify a non-custodial sentence – Whether sentences should be suspended – Held: No; following Li Cheuk-ming, immediate custodial sentence imposed – Application for review of sentence allowed – community service orders quashed – each respondent sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment (starting point 9 months, reduced for guilty plea, completed community service, and nature of review) – application of R v Sargeant four classic principles of sentencing (retribution, deterrence, prevention, rehabilitation) – deterrence must predominate in corruption cases in both public and private sectors.
Legal issues: Appropriateness of community service orders for corruption offences under s.9 POBO · Whether the magistrate erred in finding exceptional circumstances for non-custodial sentences · Whether sentences of imprisonment should be suspended
Outcome: Application for review of sentence allowed. The original community service orders were quashed and each respondent was sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment.
Cited by 8 cases