The Chief Property Manager was the first directorate officer convicted of “misconduct in public office” in Hong Kong. The provisions sounded a warning against those who abused their power not for the benefit of themselves but for others.
Previously, when prosecuting an offence of making personal gain through the exercise of one’s official duties, the prosecution had to prove the officer’s acceptance of commissions or other form of advantages. In this case, although there was no evidence to show the Chief Property Manager had derived any pecuniary or other forms of tangible advantages, his abuse of office to benefit others was successfully proved.
Consequently, with dishonest intent being enough to constitute a criminal offence, there could be much more room for prosecuting misconduct offence in future.
To eliminate any doubts or ambiguities, the CFA judgement stated elements that constituted the offence of misconduct in public office are, namely:
The CFA judgement stated that the purpose of specifying the elements of the offence was not to punish public officers’ conduct in their private lives. Whether or not public officers had committed misconduct offences was not to be determined by their capacity as public officers alone, but by the acts done or omitted to be done by them as public officers.
The misconduct must be deliberate rather than accidental in the sense that the official knew his conduct was unlawful. The offence of misconduct in public office must also involve serious misconduct. Whether the misconduct was serious must be determined having regard to the responsibilities of the defendant, the importance of the public office, the extent of breach of duty, etc.
Since the conviction of the Chief Property Manager, there are 33 prosecutions for the offence of misconduct in public office through May 2010.
The convicted Chief Property Manager had joined the Rating and Valuation Department of the Government in 1967 and had attained the rank of Principal Valuation Surveyor in 1998 while being investigated by the ICAC. He was then a D1 officer receiving a monthly salary of around HK$98,000. Upon conviction, he not only lost his job but also a pension amounting to $6 million.