Read the full judgment text of CACC 000463/2000 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 27 February 2001 before Stuart-Moore VP and Mayo VP.
Criminal law – sentencing – conspiracy to defraud – corruption-type offences – sentencing starting point – discount for guilty plea – community service order – whether starting point of 2½ years manifestly excessive – whether sentencing judge erred in treating the case as having a flavour of corruption and in finding nothing to choose between the roles of the co-conspirators – whether judge failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors including delay, selective prosecution, absence of actual loss, belated plea, good character and personal impact on family – whether a community service order should have been made – the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance as a guide to sentencing for offences with a flavour of corruption – deterrent sentencing principles for first offenders in corruption-type cases – applicant sole proprietor of a decorating firm with an ongoing business relationship with the Mandarin Oriental Hotel agreed with co-conspirator Mr Chan to inflate a quotation by HK$100,000 for roof top handrail renovation works – applicant did not ultimately obtain the job – ICAC investigation followed – applicant pleaded guilty part-way through trial after 12-day trial listing – sentencing judge imposed 2 years' imprisonment from a starting point of 2½ years, allowing 15% for the late plea plus a further 1½ months for other mitigating factors – application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed – sentence not excessive or wrong in principle – community service order not appropriate.
Legal issues: Whether starting point of 2½ years was manifestly excessive · Whether sentencing judge erred in finding nothing to choose between roles of co-conspirators · Whether sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors · Whether a community service order should have been imposed
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed; sentence of 2 years' imprisonment upheld.
Cited by 7 cases