Read the full judgment text of CACC 000510/2002 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 10 November 2003 before Ma CJHC, Stuart-Moore VP & Beeson J.
Criminal law – conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice – common law offence – hawker control officers – J Squad, Urban Services Department, Kwun Tong – Yan Oi Court – pre-arranged arrests of designated hawkers – coordination with hawkers' own rota system – false USD Form 601 (Hawker Arrest Case Summary) nomination of arresting officer – false USD Form 602 seizure records – Issue 1: nature and scope of the offence of perverting the course of public justice – whether confined to curial proceedings or extends to police investigations and law enforcement activities – held that 'course of public justice' is referable to curial proceedings only, but imminent, probable or possible proceedings suffice and a discernible link between conduct and proceedings is required – mens rea requires intention to pervert with knowledge or contemplation of possible curial proceedings – actus reus requires manifest tendency to pervert – Issue 2: proper analysis of facts – predetermination of arrests, selective seizure, false nomination of arresting officers and inaccurate seizure records had manifest tendency to pervert – Forms 601 and 602 as basis of prosecution would inevitably mislead the court – Issue 3: mens rea – superior orders/instructions from training school not a defence and insufficient to displace knowledge of wrongdoing – Issue 4: sufficiency of evidence against 18th and 19th applicants who joined later – late participation in extended conspiracy (May 1997 to March 1999) not fatal where they were involved in significant number of arrests and Form 601/602 documents – Outcome: applications for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed – convictions stand – original suspended prison sentences of 3 to 9 months imposed on 12 September 2002 undisturbed.
Legal issues: Nature of the offence of perverting the course of public justice · Proper analysis of the facts · Requisite mens rea of the applicants · Sufficiency of evidence against the 18th and 19th applicants
Outcome: Applications for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed; convictions of all 17 applicants stand.
Cited by 2 cases