Conviction upheld for 17 FEHD officers
2003-11-11
The Court of Appeal has rejected the applications of 17 Hawker Control Grade officers of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) for leave to appeal against conviction of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice in not taking proper enforcement action against hawkers over obstruction offences at Yan Oi Court in Kwun Tong.
The 17 applicants were among 19 FEHD officers charged by the ICAC. They were convicted of one joint charge of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice at District Court in August last year, and were sentenced to jail terms ranging from three mo nths to nine months, suspended for one year.
Two other defendants had earlier abandoned their applications for leave to appeal.
The 17 applicants were Peter Wong Shing-yim, Yung Hon-fui, Tang Wai-keung, Tung Kwai-fuk, Lau Kwong-fai, Li Kwok-chuen, Chan Wing-chi, Chan Ho-kwong, Yuen Wan-ip, Kam Suk-fong, Yeung How-hang, Ip Hon-mo, Cheung Tim-lam, Chow Wing-cheong, Chan Chi-shing, L eung Hing-kwan, and Liu Chi-cheung.
The applications were heard before High Court Chief Judge Geoffrey Ma, Vice President Mr Justice Michael Stuart-Moore, and Judge of the Court of First Instance Madam Justice Clare-Marie Beeson last month.
In a written judgement handed down yesterday (Monday), the Court of Appeal rejected the applicants' argument that the administration of the "course of justice" was restricted to judicial proceedings and was not referable to the enforcement action being ta ken at the time of the offence.
The Court of Appeal ruled that it was not necessary for judicial proceedings to be actually in existence at the time of the relevant act or conduct, and that it was sufficient if such proceedings were imminent, probably or even possible at the time of the relevant act or conduct.
The Court of Appeal also found that the acts of the applicants all had and were intended to have a manifest tendency to pervert the course of public justice.
The applicants also argued that in carrying out the activities at Yan Oi Court, they were merely following the instructions and common practices.
In rejecting this argument, the Court of Appeal ruled that the following of instructions did not constitute a defence to a criminal offence by itself.
The respondent was represented by Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Kevin Zervos and Senior Government Counsel Gary Lam.
The 17 applicants were among 19 FEHD officers charged by the ICAC. They were convicted of one joint charge of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice at District Court in August last year, and were sentenced to jail terms ranging from three mo nths to nine months, suspended for one year.
Two other defendants had earlier abandoned their applications for leave to appeal.
The 17 applicants were Peter Wong Shing-yim, Yung Hon-fui, Tang Wai-keung, Tung Kwai-fuk, Lau Kwong-fai, Li Kwok-chuen, Chan Wing-chi, Chan Ho-kwong, Yuen Wan-ip, Kam Suk-fong, Yeung How-hang, Ip Hon-mo, Cheung Tim-lam, Chow Wing-cheong, Chan Chi-shing, L eung Hing-kwan, and Liu Chi-cheung.
The applications were heard before High Court Chief Judge Geoffrey Ma, Vice President Mr Justice Michael Stuart-Moore, and Judge of the Court of First Instance Madam Justice Clare-Marie Beeson last month.
In a written judgement handed down yesterday (Monday), the Court of Appeal rejected the applicants' argument that the administration of the "course of justice" was restricted to judicial proceedings and was not referable to the enforcement action being ta ken at the time of the offence.
The Court of Appeal ruled that it was not necessary for judicial proceedings to be actually in existence at the time of the relevant act or conduct, and that it was sufficient if such proceedings were imminent, probably or even possible at the time of the relevant act or conduct.
The Court of Appeal also found that the acts of the applicants all had and were intended to have a manifest tendency to pervert the course of public justice.
The applicants also argued that in carrying out the activities at Yan Oi Court, they were merely following the instructions and common practices.
In rejecting this argument, the Court of Appeal ruled that the following of instructions did not constitute a defence to a criminal offence by itself.
The respondent was represented by Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Kevin Zervos and Senior Government Counsel Gary Lam.