Stephen Li Shuet-lo v. The Queen

CACC000223/1976

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.223 OF 1976

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

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & Pickering, JJ.A.

Date of Judgment: 5th March, 1976.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to one offence of conspiracy to solicit and accept advantages contrary to section 4(2) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201, and to 48 charges of soliciting and advantage or accepting an advantage contrary to section 4(2)(a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. He was sentenced to three years on the conspiracy count and to 2 ½ years' imprisonment on each of the other charges. All sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. The learned trial judge also made an order for the repayment of sums totalling $49,000. The appellant appeals against these sentences.

2. The offences were committed between September 1971 and April 1975. During that time the appellant was a sales manager employed in a company known as "T.V.B." and later as an Assistant to the Managing Director of that company. This company is a public body so far as the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance is concerned and the appellant was, at all times, within the definition of a "public servant", which is contained in section 2 of the Ordinance.

3. The facts, which were agreed, were that as the sales manager he solicited advantages from five officers of the company who were salesmen and subordinate to him. The advantages were in the form of shares in the commission that these salesmen earned and for these the appellant allocated or reallocated advertising accounts to the salesmen or agreed to continue their services as salesmen. As a result of this course of conduct the appellant received something like $152,000.

4. Various matters were put before the court by way of mitigation. The appellant is a man of excellent character and was a particularly brilliant salesman and sales manager. It was urged that he had no knowledge that what he was doing was contrary to the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance nor that he was a "public servant" within the definition of that term in the Ordinance. More cogent, perhaps, is the fact that he was working under one K.H. Hung and that he, the appellant, did not initiate the system which resulted in these charges being brought. Mr. Hung was the Financial Controller and he was one of the conspirators mentioned in the conspiracy charge. Mr. Hung has fled Hong Kong. It is also for remark that the appellant has a clear record and pleaded guilty. He has, of course, forfeited his very lucrative position with his company and is unlikely to be employed in that field in a similar capacity.

5. Taking all this into consideration, and also the fact that this is the first case of its kind under this Ordinance, we think that justice would best be done if we allow the appeal to the extent that the sentence of three years passed on the conspiracy charge is reduced to one of fifteen months' imprisonment and the sentences of 2 ½ years passed on the other charges are reduced to twelve months for each charge, all sentences to be concurrent. The order for restitution is to stand.

Representation:

Sherrard, Q.C. & Sakhrani (P.C. Woo & Co.) for appellant.

Bellanto for crown.