律政司司長 對 陳志雲
Read the full judgment text of FAMC 4/2016 on BabelCite. This FAMC judgment before 鄧國楨, 霍兆剛, 司徒敬.
Criminal law – bribery – Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap 201) s.9 – agent – criminal intent – 'in relation to his principal's affairs or business' – reasonable excuse – leave to appeal – question of great general and public importance – substantial and grave injustice – application by 陳志雲 following dismissal of appeals in CACC 103/2012 and CACC 183/2014 – whether the agent under s.9 POBO must possess a particular kind of criminal intent for the offence to be made out – how the element 'in relation to his principal's affairs or business' should be interpreted having regard to Commissioner of the ICAC v Ch'ng Poh [1997] HKLRD 652 – what is the proper approach to the 'reasonable excuse' defence under s.9 POBO – whether the applicant suffered substantial and grave injustice such that the Court of Final Appeal should entertain the appeal – Appeal Committee grants leave to appeal on both certified questions and on the substantial and grave injustice ground – substantive appeal fixed for 21 February 2017.
Legal issues: Criminal intent required of an agent under s.9 POBO · Interpretation of 'in relation to his principal's affairs or business' under s.9 POBO · Proper approach to 'reasonable excuse' defence under s.9 POBO · Whether applicant suffered substantial and grave injustice
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal granted; substantive appeal to be heard by the Court of Final Appeal.
Cites 1 case
|
[Chinese Translation – 中譯本] FAMC 4/2016 香港特別行政區 終審法院 終院刑事雜項案件2016年第4號 上訴許可申請 （原高院上訴法庭刑事上訴2012年第103號及2014年第183號） ____________________
____________________
_________________________ 裁決書 _________________________ 上訴委員會： 1.本院就下述具有重大而廣泛重要性的法律問題給予申請人上訴許可，即：
2.基於上訴法庭的判案書，本院亦給予申請人上訴許可，以爭辯上訴人曾遭受實質及嚴重的不公平。 3.上訴案將於 2017年2月21日審理。
申請人：由資深大律師謝華淵．若瑟先生、大律師陳永豪先生和大律師曾宗堯先生（由鄧耀榮律師行延聘）代表 答辯人：由外聘資深大律師郭棟明先生和律政司高級檢控官談立豐先生代表 [本譯文由法庭語文組翻譯，並經由李日華律師核定。] |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under FAMC 4/2016