Attorney General v. Li Yuk-hing and Another
Read the full judgment text of CAAR 3/1974 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The two respondents were found guilty of corruptly soliciting and corruptly accepting the sum of $15 from one LUI Hok contrary to section 4 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. In the months of September and October 1973 LUI Hok was the Manager of an opium divan at 1042 Canton Road. On the 5th October, the two respondents who were police constables and in uniform solicited and accepted the sum of $15 from LUI Hok.
|
CAAR000003/1974 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) APPLICATION FOR REVIEW NO. 3 OF 1974 -----------------
Coram: Briggs, C.J., Trainor & Cons, JJ. Date of Judgment: 12th February, 1974. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The two respondents were found guilty of corruptly soliciting and corruptly accepting the sum of $15 from one LUI Hok contrary to section 4 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. In the months of September and October 1973 LUI Hok was the Manager of an opium divan at 1042 Canton Road. On the 5th October, the two respondents who were police constables and in uniform solicited and accepted the sum of $15 from LUI Hok. 2. LUI Hok had already made a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Branch of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force that the police (though not the two respondents) had been collecting protection money from him. The Anti-Corruption Branch had laid a trap and had installed a microphone and tape-recorder on the premises. LUI Hok had also been given two marked notes. One of these marked notes was handed by him to one of the two respondents and the conversation that passed was recorded and formed part of the evidence at the trial. There is no doubt from the evidence whatever that the two respondents solicited and accepted $15 from LUI Hok. The two respondents were arrested immediately after they left the premises. 3. The learned magistrate sentenced each of the respondents to three months' imprisonment for the charge of soliciting and three months' imprisonment for the charge of accepting. The sentences to be concurrent. 4. We think that these sentences are manifestly inadequate. It would appear that the magistrate paid particular attention to the fact that the respondents would be dismissed from the Police Force and that the sum involved was very small. We think that the seriousness of these charges was not fully realized by the magistrate. The respondents were police constables and not only that but were in uniform and on duty, when they perpetrated the crimes. They were collecting what was obviously protection money from a man who was engaged in an illegal activity. It is true that only $15 was collected on this occasion, but that is of relatively minor importance. What is important is that this was a most blatant violation of the law by these two police officers. Such conduct merits a severe sentence. 5. We think that the minimum sentence for corruption in circumstances such as is apparent here must be a custodial sentence of twelve months. Therefore, we set aside the sentences of three months passed by the magistrate and substituted a sentence of twelve months for each offence, the sentences to be concurrent. 6. Mr. Sceats, whe appeared for the Crown, produced a list of the penalties in seventeen cases of soliciting in the year 1973 which were imposed in the District and Magistrates Courts. We notice with great concern that in at least three cases a fine was imposed; that in more than one case the offender was placed on probation and in one case an offender was given a suspended sentence. We think that in the present climate of Hong Kong such sentences are wrong in principle for an offence under section 4 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. In all but the rarest of cases an offence under this section merits a custodial sentence and one which takes effect immediately. Representation: B.A. Sceats, Assistant to Law Officers, for Crown/Applicant Respondents in person. |