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.
Cited by 3 cases