Appeal Court dismisses former tobacco executive's appeal on the ground of judicial intervention
2001-4-6
The Court of Appeal today (Friday) handed down a written judgement which spelt out the reasons for dismissing the application of former tobacco company executive Jerry Lui Kin-hong for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.
Lui was charged by the ICAC with conspiracy to accept more than $33 million in bribes. He was convicted of the charge at the Court of First Instance in 1998, and sentenced to three years and eight months' imprisonment.
Lui's lawyer had submitted a ground of appeal, contending that the trial judge had deprived Lui of a fair trial by asking "an inordinate number of questions" and transgressing "the acceptable limits of judicial intervention".
In delivering the judgement, Vice-President Mr Justice Stuart-Moore rejected the argument, saying that the Appeal Court was "unable to see that any prejudice was caused to the defence when, in any event, the matter required clarification".
Mr Justice Stuart-Moore added: "This application has provided a prime example of the importance of the judge's role at trial in ensuring that members of the jury are not left with ambiguities in their minds on central issues in the trial.”
The Appeal Court, while rejecting the application to interfere with the original jail sentence of three years and eight months, commented that "the sentence was manifestly inadequate" because this was a case in which over $30 million bribes were accepted over a three-year period by a mature and educated man, who occupied a senior position in a major industry and showed no remorse.
The judge also said Lui deserved no reduction at all for extradition as he brought upon himself the period of custody in the USA pending extradition.
Lui was ordered to serve the remaining nine months of imprisonment.
The Appeal Court also set aside the original restitution order and increased the restitution paid by Lui to his former employers from $10 million to $21.25 million.
Of the $21.25 million, $12.75 million is to be paid to Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation (B&W), while the remaining $8.5 million to British-American Tobacco Company (HK) Limited (BATHK).
The Appeal Court also set aside the original cost order requiring Lui to pay $11 million. Lui was now ordered to pay prosecution costs, the amount of which to be determined by the taxing master.
Lui's offence took place between June 1988 and December 1993 while he was employed by B&W and BATHK. The bribes, involving more than $33 million, were to ensure the sale and supply of cigarettes from BATHK to Giant Island Limited or associated companies.
Lui was sentenced to three-years-and-eight-months' imprisonment and fined $500,000. He was also ordered to pay $11 million in prosecution costs and to repay $10 million to his former employers.
Lui was acquitted following his appeal to the Court of Appeal in February last year on a ground of legal technicalities.
The prosecution then appealed to the Court of Final Appeal, which unanimously restored Lui's conviction. The case was remitted to the Court of Appeal to hear the remaining grounds of appeal.
Lui subsequently pursued one of the remaining grounds and the appeal was considered by Vice President Mr Justice Stuart-Moore, Vice President Mr Justice Mayo and Mr Justice Stock, resulting in today's judgement.
Lui was charged by the ICAC with conspiracy to accept more than $33 million in bribes. He was convicted of the charge at the Court of First Instance in 1998, and sentenced to three years and eight months' imprisonment.
Lui's lawyer had submitted a ground of appeal, contending that the trial judge had deprived Lui of a fair trial by asking "an inordinate number of questions" and transgressing "the acceptable limits of judicial intervention".
In delivering the judgement, Vice-President Mr Justice Stuart-Moore rejected the argument, saying that the Appeal Court was "unable to see that any prejudice was caused to the defence when, in any event, the matter required clarification".
Mr Justice Stuart-Moore added: "This application has provided a prime example of the importance of the judge's role at trial in ensuring that members of the jury are not left with ambiguities in their minds on central issues in the trial.”
The Appeal Court, while rejecting the application to interfere with the original jail sentence of three years and eight months, commented that "the sentence was manifestly inadequate" because this was a case in which over $30 million bribes were accepted over a three-year period by a mature and educated man, who occupied a senior position in a major industry and showed no remorse.
The judge also said Lui deserved no reduction at all for extradition as he brought upon himself the period of custody in the USA pending extradition.
Lui was ordered to serve the remaining nine months of imprisonment.
The Appeal Court also set aside the original restitution order and increased the restitution paid by Lui to his former employers from $10 million to $21.25 million.
Of the $21.25 million, $12.75 million is to be paid to Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation (B&W), while the remaining $8.5 million to British-American Tobacco Company (HK) Limited (BATHK).
The Appeal Court also set aside the original cost order requiring Lui to pay $11 million. Lui was now ordered to pay prosecution costs, the amount of which to be determined by the taxing master.
Lui's offence took place between June 1988 and December 1993 while he was employed by B&W and BATHK. The bribes, involving more than $33 million, were to ensure the sale and supply of cigarettes from BATHK to Giant Island Limited or associated companies.
Lui was sentenced to three-years-and-eight-months' imprisonment and fined $500,000. He was also ordered to pay $11 million in prosecution costs and to repay $10 million to his former employers.
Lui was acquitted following his appeal to the Court of Appeal in February last year on a ground of legal technicalities.
The prosecution then appealed to the Court of Final Appeal, which unanimously restored Lui's conviction. The case was remitted to the Court of Appeal to hear the remaining grounds of appeal.
Lui subsequently pursued one of the remaining grounds and the appeal was considered by Vice President Mr Justice Stuart-Moore, Vice President Mr Justice Mayo and Mr Justice Stock, resulting in today's judgement.