CFA upholds bribery convictions of senior police officer and businesswoman
2005-5-26
The Court of Final Appeal (CFA) today (Thursday) unanimously dismissed the appeals of a Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) and a businesswoman convicted in a bribery trial.
Sin Kam-wah, 47, a SSP, and Lam Chuen-ip, 44, a businesswoman, who were earlier granted bail whilst pending the appeals, were immediately sent to jail to serve their remaining prison terms following the CFA ruling.
In December 2003, Sin was sentenced to three years' imprisonment at District Court for misconduct in public office over the acceptance of free sexual services from prostitutes, while Lam also received the same jail term for offering advantages to Sin and exercising control over some women with a view to their prostitution.
Sin and Lam then appealed against their convictions and sentences. The Court of Appeal subsequently reduced their jail terms by one year, but rejected their appeals against conviction.
The duo took the case further to the CFA. Their appeals were considered by Chief Justice Li Kwok-nang, Mr Justice Bokhary, Mr Justice Chan, Mr Justice Ribeiro, and Sir Anthony Mason.
In the judgement handed down by the CFA today, Sir Anthony Mason rejected Sin's argument that the conduct in question was not in the course of or in relation to his public office, and was neither culpable nor serious.
"To constitute the offence of misconduct in public office, wilful misconduct which has a relevant relationship with the defendant's public office is enough," said Sir Anthony.
The CFA found there could be no doubt that the misconduct had the necessary relationship with Sin's public office, and that it was culpable and serious because it involved his participation in the acceptance of free sexual services with the knowledge that they were provided by prostitutes over whom Lam exercised control.
Citing a relevant provision of the Police Force Ordinance, the CFA shared the view of the Court of Appeal that it deemed a police officer to be on duty when circumstances existed requiring him to exercise the powers he had as a police officer.
In rejecting Sin's claim that he did not know the women over whom Lam exercised control were prostitutes, the CFA noted that such an argument invested Sin with "an air of naivete, which was, to say the least, remarkable in a high-ranking police officer wi th the experience Sin had in dealing with organised crime and the vice industry".
Rejecting Lam's appeal, the CFA judge held that there was ample evidence to support that the appellant exercised control over the hostesses concerned for their prostitution, as she not only had a financial interest in the clubs but also occupied a positio n of authority in their operations.
On the argument whether Lam had "dealings of any kind" with the Government through the Police when arranging prostitutes to offer free sexual services to Sin, the CFA ruled that even if a defendant had no personal dealings with the Government, it would be enough if companies in which the defendant had an interest had such dealings.
Sin Kam-wah, 47, a SSP, and Lam Chuen-ip, 44, a businesswoman, who were earlier granted bail whilst pending the appeals, were immediately sent to jail to serve their remaining prison terms following the CFA ruling.
In December 2003, Sin was sentenced to three years' imprisonment at District Court for misconduct in public office over the acceptance of free sexual services from prostitutes, while Lam also received the same jail term for offering advantages to Sin and exercising control over some women with a view to their prostitution.
Sin and Lam then appealed against their convictions and sentences. The Court of Appeal subsequently reduced their jail terms by one year, but rejected their appeals against conviction.
The duo took the case further to the CFA. Their appeals were considered by Chief Justice Li Kwok-nang, Mr Justice Bokhary, Mr Justice Chan, Mr Justice Ribeiro, and Sir Anthony Mason.
In the judgement handed down by the CFA today, Sir Anthony Mason rejected Sin's argument that the conduct in question was not in the course of or in relation to his public office, and was neither culpable nor serious.
"To constitute the offence of misconduct in public office, wilful misconduct which has a relevant relationship with the defendant's public office is enough," said Sir Anthony.
The CFA found there could be no doubt that the misconduct had the necessary relationship with Sin's public office, and that it was culpable and serious because it involved his participation in the acceptance of free sexual services with the knowledge that they were provided by prostitutes over whom Lam exercised control.
Citing a relevant provision of the Police Force Ordinance, the CFA shared the view of the Court of Appeal that it deemed a police officer to be on duty when circumstances existed requiring him to exercise the powers he had as a police officer.
In rejecting Sin's claim that he did not know the women over whom Lam exercised control were prostitutes, the CFA noted that such an argument invested Sin with "an air of naivete, which was, to say the least, remarkable in a high-ranking police officer wi th the experience Sin had in dealing with organised crime and the vice industry".
Rejecting Lam's appeal, the CFA judge held that there was ample evidence to support that the appellant exercised control over the hostesses concerned for their prostitution, as she not only had a financial interest in the clubs but also occupied a positio n of authority in their operations.
On the argument whether Lam had "dealings of any kind" with the Government through the Police when arranging prostitutes to offer free sexual services to Sin, the CFA ruled that even if a defendant had no personal dealings with the Government, it would be enough if companies in which the defendant had an interest had such dealings.