Read the full judgment text of CACC 000438/1989 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 29 March 1990 before Silke VP, Kempster JA, Power JA.
Criminal law – bribery – Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap 201) s.9(1)(a) and (b) – soliciting and accepting an advantage as an agent – exclusive buying agency agreement – 9.5 per cent commission – abuse of position of trust by demanding and accepting personal 'commissions' from suppliers without employer's knowledge or consent – payments by personal cheque to agent, in cash, or by cash cheque into agent's mother's account – credibility of witnesses granted immunity under s.22 of the Ordinance – evaluation of credibility by trial judge – whether criticisms of immunity witnesses well-founded – no motive to lie found by trial judge – whether failure to prove that the principal (Innova) did not receive the advantage renders each conviction bad in law – no issue arises under s.94A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap 221) where agent personally accepted payments without principal's knowledge – whether a s.9(1)(a) soliciting charge requires proof of a corresponding s.9(1)(b) accepting charge – rejection of proposition that subsection (a) charge cannot stand without corresponding subsection (b) charge – uncontradicted and unchallenged Crown evidence – standard of proof – appellate review of credibility findings – judge saw and heard witnesses – no lurking doubts about safety of convictions – application for leave to appeal dismissed as hopeless.
Legal issues: Evaluation of credibility of immunity witnesses under s.22 POBO · Whether failure to prove the principal did not receive the advantage renders s.9(1) convictions bad in law · Whether a s.9(1)(a) soliciting charge requires proof of a corresponding s.9(1)(b) accepting charge
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed; convictions on four counts of soliciting and nine counts of accepting an advantage as an agent upheld.