Sentence
245. The attention of the Commission was drawn to the sentences passed in 3 cases which have come before the courts since the enactment of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance Cap. 201.
1.
2.
3.
X went to the Seaman's Recruiting Office to register as a seaman. During his interview, he offered $600 to the Recruiting Assistant as an inducement to obtain employment on board a ship. He pleaded guilty to a charge under section 4(1) of Cap. 201. The maximum sentence for such an offence on summary conviction is a fine of $50,000 and imprisonment for 3 years. X was bound over by the magistrate to be of good behaviour.
The charge sheet against Y, a Crown servant, consisted of 4 counts under section 3 of the Ordinance and 4 counts under section 4(2). The charges arose out of an allegation that Y had accepted a total of $10,500 in consideration of his assisting certain persons who were attempting to obtain Hong Kong identity cards. Y pleaded guilty to one of the section 3 charges which alleged that he had accepted $2,000 in return for his assistance in obtaining an identity card for someone. The Crown offered no evidence on the other 7 charges. Y was fined $3,000. The maximum sentence for an offence under section 3 is a fine of $20,000 and imprisonment for 1 year. This was a District Court case.
Z, Chairman of a Rural Committee and, as such, a person having dealings with the Government through the District Officer, offered the latter $10,000 and a canteen of cutlery. He was charged with an offence under section 8 of the Ordinance, the maximum punishment for which is a fine of $100,000 and imprisonment for 7 years. Z pleaded guilty and was fined $30,000. A sentence of 18 months imprisonment was also passed but it was suspended for a period of 2 years, presumably under power conferred by section 109B of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance which reads:
"A court which passes a sentence of imprisonment for a term of not more than 2 years for an offence ... may order that the sentence shall not take effect, unless during a period of ... not ... more than 3 years from the date of the order, the offender commits ... another offence punishable with imprisonment and ... a court ... orders ... that the original sentence shall take effect."
Therefore, provided Z does not do the same thing again during the next 2 years, he will not have to go to prison at all; and his punishment consists of having to pay 3 times the amount of the bribe. 246. Judging by the information received by the Commission, these three court decisions have evoked a good deal of public criticism. The stock answer to such criticism is that only the court of trial, which has all the facts before it, is capable of deciding what sentence is appropriate and that "arm-chair" critics should keep quiet. True, the public seldom, if ever, know as much about a case as does the court of trial; but I would be the last to suggest that courts of law should be immune from public criticism.
247. In this report, I have recommended that the investigatory powers of the police be increased in certain respects and the relaxation of certain rules of evidence and procedure. I have also recommended that the Government, in its capacity as an employer, should adopt a more master and servant approach in its dealings with its own employees. The courts also have an important role in this battle against corruption; and, unless potential corrupters and Crown servants who are prepared to accept bribes feel certain that, if caught and prosecuted, they will be severely dealt with by the courts, there is little hope that this scourge of corruption will ever be eradicated by the ordinary judicial process.
Supreme Court, HONG KONG.
1st September 1973.
56
56
Alastair Blair-Kerr,
Commissioner.