!==At the Courts
37
!"#$%&
!==At the Courts
Major and Interesting Cases
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012345
In 2001 the Division's prosecutors conducted cases in all
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456
courts of criminal jurisdiction. They were conscious at all
times of their role as ministers for justice. At the appellate
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123%45
level prosecutors contributed to the just and ordered
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456
development of the criminal law. At the trial level
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456
prosecutors presented their cases fairly and effectively. At
!"#$%&'()*+ ,-%./0123
all levels our prosecutors sought a proper disposal of the
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012
issues in contention. Whereas all prosecutions were of
importance, some exerted a greater influence upon the
development of local jurisprudence than others, while
some attracted particular public interest.
!
!"#$== ExOMMOz=N=ehioa=NRMF=
Appeals
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0 !"
The Court of Final Appeal
VENF !"#$%&'()*+$ NVUM
In HKSAR v Ewan Launder ([2002] 1 HKLRD 150), the
!"#$%&'(#$)*+,-./0$12
Court of Final Appeal quashed the conviction of the
accused for an offence of accepting an advantage, contrary
!"#$%&'() QRM !"#$%&'
to s9(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. The
! !"# !"#$%&'()*
prosecution alleged at trial that the accused, who in 1980
! !"# !"#$% !"
was managing director of Wardley's Limited, the merchant
!"#$%&'()* +"#,-./0
banking subsidiary of HSBC, corruptly accepted $4.5
!" #$%&'()*+,-./"012
million from George Tan, of the Carrian Group, as an
!"#$%&'()* ! !"#
inducement or reward for 'showing favour' to Carrian
companies in the provision of financial services. The Court
decided there was a distinction between 'showing favour',
!"#$%==ExOMMNz=P=ehioa=VRF
!"#$%&'()*+, MKOQ !
!"#$%&'()*"+,-.#/!0
!"#$%&'$()* +,-./0
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123
!"#$%&'()*+,-./ 0
which was present and prospective, and 'having shown
favour', which was past. The trial judge misdirected the
jury in law that they could convict if 'favour' had been
shown in the past, before the acceptance of the alleged
In HKSAR v Chor Lui ([2001] 3 HKLRD 95), the
accused was sentenced to 2 months' imprisonment
after he pleaded guilty to trafficking in 0.24g of
herbal cannabis in a discotheque. In dismissing
the appeal against sentence, the Court of First
Instance emphasised that an immediate custodial
sentence was appropriate as the accused was
engaged in the sale of herbal cannabis in a place
where impressionable young people congregated,
and was preying on their credibility.
advantage.
38
!==At the Courts
== !"#$=ExOMMNz=N=ehioa=NUMF !
In Lo Chun-nam v HKSAR ([2001] 1 HKLRD 180), the
!"# !"#$ V !"#$%&'
Court of Final Appeal set aside the conviction of the accused
for an offence of theft, contrary to s9 of the Theft Ordinance.
!"#$%&'()*+,-.$/.01234
It did so on the basis that the prosecutor at trial ought to
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456
have cross-examined the accused more fully after it had
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012345
been suggested that he was not speaking the truth on a
= !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123
particular point. Although there were cases where the
'raised eyebrow' approach could discharge the duty of
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0!12345
counsel, the Court counselled that it was better in a criminal
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012,345
trial to take issue more obviously. It did not suffice in this
!"#$%&'()*+,-(./01234
case for counsel to ask no more than one general question
of the accused. Had a fuller cross-examination taken place
== !"#$=EEOMMNF=Q=eh`c^o==NOF
the confusion which arose might have been avoided.
! NT !"#$% !"#$%&'
In Wong Chun-cheong v HKSAR ((2001) 4 HKCFAR 12),
Q`ENF !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123
the Court of Final Appeal considered the appeal against
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012345$
sentence of a 17-year old accused who had been ordered
!"#$%&%' OIMMM ! S !"#
to be detained in a training centre after conviction of the
offence of participating in a lion dance in a public place
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012'()3
without a licence, contrary to s4C(1) of the Summary
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123&45
Offences Ordinance. The maximum sentence was a fine
!"#$%&'()*+,-%./012345
of $2,000 and 6 months' imprisonment. Although the
!"#$%&'() NMM !"#$%
accused would benefit from the training centre programme,
the Court concluded that a training centre order was usually
intended to be made in cases where the offence committed
!"#$%== ExOMMNz=O=ehioa=TRF
!"#!$%&'() *+,-!./)0
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0!1 2
!"#$%&'()*+?? !"#
!"#$%&'()*+,-./01234
QOOIORM !"#$% !&'()*+,
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123
!"#$%&'()*+',-./012#
!"#$%&'($)*+,
was of sufficient gravity to merit contemplation of an
immediate custodial sentence. Detention in a training
centre for a wholly disproportionate period, given the
triviality of the offence, could not be justified. A fine of
$100 was substituted for the training centre order.
In HKSAR v Cheng Chi-shing ([2001] 2 HKLRD 75), the
accused who was convicted after trial of an offence of
burglary challenged his sentence of 3 years and 4 months'
imprisonment. The facts showed that he was a
'professional' burglar, who had four previous similar
convictions, and that he took $422,250 in a burglary of
non-domestic premises. In dismissing his appeal, the Court
of Appeal indicated that a starting point higher than the
customary 21/2 years was justified. The accused acted in
concert with others, there had been forcible entry into the
premises, the safe had been broken open and a
considerable sum of money had been taken. The previous
convictions increased the gravity of the offence.
39
!==At the Courts
The Court of Appeal
!"#$%== ExOMMNz=N=ehioa=OTTF
!"#$%&'()*!+,-./012
!"#$%&'()*+,$-./0%1#
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0*123
!"#$%&'!"()*+,-./012
!"#$%&'()*+,'-./012
!"#$%&
In HKSAR v Ko Kam-fai ([2001] 3 HKC 181), the Court of
Appeal upheld sentences of imprisonment which totalled
12 months imposed on a computer hacker. The accused
had been convicted in the District Court of two offences of
In HKSAR v Yung Wai-siu ([2001] 1 HKLRD 277), the
unlicensed hawker who pleaded guilty to a charge of
conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice,
appealed against a sentence of 4 months' imprisonment.
The facts showed that the accused arranged with
officers of the Urban Services Department for another
person to be arrested in her stead and to appear in the
subsequent court case. The Court of First Instance
dismissed the appeal because perverting the course of
public justice was a very serious offence which went to
the heart of the rule of law.
criminal intimidation and eight offences of criminal
damage. The evidence showed that the accused hacked
into the e-mail accounts of the victims, both of whom were
female undergraduates who shared the same dormitory at
the Hong Kong University. The e-mail accounts of the
victims were overloaded to the point that they became
inoperative as a direct result of the number of e-mails he
sent them. The e-mails included obscene articles and
pictures of sexually explicit material, and a threat to rape
!
the victims. The Court observed that the judge's approach
!"#$== =ExOMMNz=P=eh`=NUNF !
in finding the offences analogous in some respects to the
!"#$%&' ! !"#$%&'!
offence of accessing a computer with criminal or dishonest
NO !"#!$%&'()*+,-./0U
intent for sentencing purposes was commendable. The
!"#$%!&'()*+,-.)/0123-
acts of criminal intimidation were a serious and alarming
!"#$%&'()*&+,-./0)*&+,
invasion of privacy, and a deterrent sentence was
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012345
necessary.
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456
In HKSAR v Tang Kwok-wah, Dixon ([2001] 2 HKC 301),
!"#$%&'(#)*+,-./012!34
a solicitor appealed against his convictions of raping and
!"#$%&'()*+, -./'01234
indecently assaulting his domestic helper. In allowing the
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0!12345
appeal on conviction of indecent assault and dismissing
the appeal on conviction of rape, the Court of Appeal
!"#$%&'()
decided that for the conduct of the accused to have
amounted to 'assault' it had to include an explicit or implied
!"#$== =ExOMMNz=O=eh`=PMNF !
threat sufficient to have put the victim under compulsion
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012345
to do as she was told. The omission to direct on this point
!" !#$%&'() !*+,-./01(
amounted to a material misdirection. As to the mental
!"#$%&'()*+,-= ! !"
element of rape, the Court observed that it was only where
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456
'honest belief' was an issue that it was necessary for the
judge to go on to direct the jury about their approach in
!"#$%&'()*+,-./01$%234
the event that they concluded that an accused genuinely
!"#$%&'()*+,-./ !"#$
held such a belief but was mistaken.
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012345#
!"#$%&'()*+,-./01
40
!"#$==
!==At the Courts
!"#$ExOMMNz=P=eh`
!"#$%== E !"# OMMN ONQ F ! NV !"#$% NISNV !"#$%&'()*+,-./01234
!"#$%&'() OMMN O !"#
!"#$%&'()*+,-./01230
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012&3
? !"#$%&'? !"#$%&'
? ? ? ? !"#$%&'(
OSUF !"#$%&'()*+,-./01)2
!"#$% !"&'()*+,-./01
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123!/
!"#$%&'()*+,-./01234
In HKSAR v Lee Wai-man (HCCC 214 of 2001), a 19year old youth who smuggled 1,619 tablets of ketamine
into Hong Kong was sentenced to 5 years'
imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to an offence of
trafficking in dangerous drugs. The facts showed that
the accused was caught at the Lo Wu border in
February 2001, with the ketamine strapped to his legs.
The Court of First Instance emphasised that the
'revulsion of the community' had been reflected by the
recent classification of ketamine as a dangerous drug,
and that in terms of its addictive quality ketamine was
more in line with 'ice' than with 'ecstasy'.
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123'
!"#$%&'()*+,-./01234/
!"#$%&'()*!+,-. /01"
!"#$%&'()*+,-.+/012!%
!"#$%&'()*+,-. !
!"#$%&'#()*+, !
!"#$%&'()*+,-./01&234
!"#$%&'()*+,-+./01234
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012345
In HKSAR v Wong Cho-sum and Others ([2001] 3 HKC
268), the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of five
!"#$%&'()
accused who had been convicted of offences of theft and
forgery. The accused operated a model agency scam, and
funds were transferred electronically from the bank
accounts of the victims to the account of the agency. It
!"#$%== E !"# OMMN PSRF !"#$%&'()!*+,-./
!"#$% !"#$%&'()*+
RVENFETF !"#$%&'()*+,
!"#$%&'()*+, NVVU !"
!"#$%&'()*+,-./01234
NMMIMMM !"#$%&'$()*+,-./
!"#$%&'()*+,
was contended that the electronic transfer of funds from
one account to another could not amount to appropriation
of property belonging to another. The Court decided that
whereas a fraudster who himself caused the transfer of
money from the victim's bank account did not thereby
In HKSAR v John Wu Chi-tso (DCCC 365 of 2001), an
accountant pleaded guilty to one charge of failing to
preserve secrecy, contrary to ss59(1) and (7) of the
Securities and Futures Commission Ordinance. The
facts showed that the accused was a lay member of
the Insider Dealing Tribunal, and that in 1998 he passed
confidential information about an inquiry to a former
schoolmate. In fining the accused $100,000, the judge
commented that he sat on the tribunal in a judicial
capacity, and that he had acted in breach of trust.
obtain a chose in action belonging to another, because
what he obtained was a fresh chose in action belonging to
himself, he might nonetheless be guilty of theft of the
victim's chose in action if it was shown that by his act he
had appropriated it. 'Appropriation' was an act directed
at the chose in action belonging to another and was not to
be equated with 'obtaining'. Where there was an act of
appropriation by which the fraudster assumed the rights of
the owner of the chose in action, and the thing recoverable
by action was diminished or extinguished by the act of
appropriation, the fraudster was guilty of theft.
41
!==At the Courts
Reviews of Sentence in Court of Appeal
!"#$%== E !"#$%&'
OMMN NUUN F !"#$"%&'()*
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0012
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123
!"#$%&'() ? ! ? !
!"#$%&'
In Secretary for Justice v Tse Sheung-kai and Others ([2001]
3 HKLRD 487), the accused pleaded guilty to shop theft.
In imposing absolute discharges, the magistrate said he
favoured a disposal whereby offenders in cases where the
In HKSAR v Kam Chiu-shun (KTCC 1881 of 2001),
the accused was charged with four offences of
criminal intimidation. The prosecution alleged that
he threatened to rape and kill the Director of Social
Welfare because he blamed her Department for
breaking up his family. The magistrate dismissed the
charges after he concluded that the threats were
merely an 'outburst of spleen'.
amounts stolen were not large were bound over to be of
good behaviour if the prosecution offered no evidence.
He advocated a system of adult cautions for first offenders,
as the starting of a criminal record in respect of minor
offences did not further rehabilitation. As the cases of
several offenders had been disposed of by way of bind
!"#$%&'(
over, the magistrate added that these accused should be
!== !"#$ExOMMNz=P=ehioa=QUTF
dealt with in the same way, and if they did not receive
!"#$%&'()*+,!-./0/"#$%
absolute discharges they would feel aggrieved. On review,
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456
the Court of Appeal decided that the approach of the
magistrate was wrong in principle and that the sentences
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012345/
he imposed were manifestly inadequate. It was not for the
!"#$%&'()*+,-."#$./#0
magistrate to dictate policy to the prosecution or to attempt
!"#$%&'()#*+,-./0123#4
to pressure the prosecutor into offering no evidence and
!"#$%&'()*+,-)./01$%&2
into the acceptance of orders binding over offenders. Theft
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012345
from shops had to be deterred, and fines would ordinarily
!"#$%&'()*+,-./01/2342
be appropriate for first offenders.
!"#$%&'()*+&,-.*/0123
!"#$%&'()*+,-"#./01234
!"#$%== E !"# OMMN QQQ F !"#$"%&'()*+!,-
!UOENFEÇF !"#$%!&'()*
!OMMIMMM !"#$%&'()*+,
!"#$%&'()*NOM !"#$%&
!"#$%"&'()*+,-./01234
!"#$%&'()*+,-./01'2$3
!"#$%&'
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0%12345
!"#$%&'()*+,-.
!"#$%== E !"# OMMN OPPF !"#$"%&'()*+,-./01
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0$12
!"#$%&'(#)*&+,-.#/01
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0+1234
!"#$%&'()*+,-$./0? ? !"#$%&
In HKSAR v Pamela Pak Wan-kam (MA 444 of 2001),
the accused who pleaded guilty to four charges of tax
evasion, contrary to s82(1)(d) of the Inland Revenue
Ordinance, and was sentenced to 3 months'
imprisonment and ordered to pay a financial penalty
of $200,000, appealed against her prison term. The
facts showed that she understated her company's
profits by $1.2 million in order to avoid paying tax.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the appeal as the
accused had consistently and deliberately defrauded
the Inland Revenue Department over a four-year period,
and it was an established sentencing principle that an
immediate sentence of imprisonment would normally
be imposed on a tax evader.
In HKSAR v Leung Yee-kwan (DCCC 233 of 2001), the
accused was convicted after trial of offences of assault and
doing acts intended to pervert the course of justice. The
case for the prosecution was that a housewife assaulted
her domestic helper, causing injuries which included a
ruptured liver and broken ribs. Thereafter the victim was
threatened with harm to her family if she disclosed what
had happened. The judge described the conduct of the
accused as 'outrageous and cold-blooded', and he
sentenced her to 3 1/2 years' imprisonment.
42
!==At the Courts
In Secretary for Justice v Tse Ki-wu and Others ([2001] 4
!"#$%== !"#$E !"#
OMMMTPOF !"#$"%&'!()
!"OP !"#$%&'()*+, !"#$%&'%&()*+,-./012
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012"3
!"#$%&'()*+,-./01234
!"#$%
HKC 263), the accused were Mainland Chinese who
were convicted of burglary and unlawful remaining in
Hong Kong. In sentencing, the trial judge granted each
accused a discount of two months' imprisonment on the
In HKSAR v Thomson Mo Sze-lung and Ailey Yeung
Chin-tat (DCCC 732 of 2000), the accused were
convicted after trial of blackmail, contrary to s23 of
the Theft Ordinance. The evidence showed that the
accused, a barrister and a solicitor, attempted to
extort $10 million from Nina Wang, the chairwoman
of the Chinachem Group, by threatening to expose
what they believed to be a criminal act on her part by
dishonesty. Each accused was sentenced to 3 years'
imprisonment.
basis that as they came from elsewhere in China they
should be treated as foreigners, and would suffer
additional hardship in the Hong Kong prison system. On
review, the Court of Appeal held that the discounts were
wrong in principle and cancelled them. The Court
indicated that as a general rule Mainlanders ought not
to qualify for a discount, even if far from home. Chinese
nationals were not to be regarded as foreigners, as Hong
!== !"#=ExOMMNz=Q=eh`=OSPF
Kong was an integral part of China. The accused, who
!"#$%&'$!"()*+,-.(/0(
spoke Putonghua and were not from some remote place,
had not been able to show any particular hardship.
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012345
!"#$%&'(")*+,-./0123
In Secretary for Justice v Ko Wai-kit ([2001] 3 HKLRD
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012345
751) the Court of Appeal allowed a review of sentence
!"#$%&'()*+,#-%./0#1
and substituted a term of imprisonment of 3 years upon
a van driver who had been sentenced to 12 months and
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012345
one week's imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to
!"#$%&'()*+,-."/01
dangerous driving and resisting arrest. The evidence
!"#$%&'()*+,-./01234
showed that while driving from Ngau Tau Kok to Tsim
Sha Tsui under the influence of 'ice', the accused
!"#$%&
committed numerous traffic offences, damaged nine
!== =ExOMMNz=P=ehioa=TRNF !
vehicles and three motorcycles and injured three people.
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123'
He caused a police officer to discharge his revolver, and
injured several police officers when he violently resisted
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012334
arrest. The Court observed that the driving offence
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012345
committed was the worst of its kind, and that the
= !"#$%&'()*+,"
!"#
maximum penalty of 3 years might require revision so
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0,12.(
as to cover such serious cases.
!"#$%&#'()*+,-./01234
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123
!"#$%&'()*+'(,-./0123
!"#$%&'() *+,-./0'12+
!"#$%&'()*+
43
!==At the Courts
Trials
!"#$== E !"#OMMMRT
In HKSAR v Lam Shing-tak (HCCC 57 of 2000), a toy
F
!"#$%&'()*+!",-./0
salesman was convicted by the 6-1 verdicts of a jury of
!"#$%&'()*+,-./01234
kidnapping and murdering his lover's four-year old son.
!"#$%&'()*&+,-./01234
The evidence showed that the accused regarded the victim
!"#$%&'()*+,-./)0&123
as an obstacle to his relationship with the child's mother.
After he had drugged his victim, bound and gagged him
!"#$%&'()*+ ,-./0"1
with adhesive tape and tied his thumbs together
!"#$%&'()*!+,-./0123
with a plastic clasp, he dumped him into the sea. The
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012345
decomposed body was found by a fisherman three days
!"#$%$&' !"#$%&'()*
later, floating in Gin Drinkers Bay, off Tsing Yi Island. After
the trial judge told him that he had been convicted of 'one
!"#$%&'()*+,-
of the worst things imaginable', the accused was sentenced
!"#$== ==mÉíÉê=`ççãÄÉê=E
!OMMNPOUF
to a term of life imprisonment.
!"#$%&'(
In HKSAR v Brian Heard and Peter Coomber (DCCC 328
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012342
of 2001), the accused pleaded guilty during the trial to an
!"#$%&'()*+, `ççãÄÉê !
offence of conspiracy to furnish false information to an
!" `ççãÄÉê !"#$ dçêÅÜáÖëïÉå
immigration officer. The prosecution alleged that Heard,
!"#$%&'() ` ç ç ã Ä É ê a Senior Superintendent of Police, and Coomber, a
lÇëìêÉå !"#$%&'()*+,"#-./
businessman, made false claims to enable Coomber's
l Ç ë ì ê É å !"#$%& `ççãÄÉê !"#$%&'()*+,-./0#123
Mongolian girlfriend, Gorchigswen Odsuren, to work in
!"#$%&'
Hong Kong. After the Immigration Department refused
his application for a visa for Ms Odsuren to take up
!"#$%&'()*'+,'-./012
employment in his company, Coomber appealed and
lÇëìêÉå submitted a letter from Heard in support of the claim that
!"#$%&'()*+,-.
!"#$%&$'()*+,-"
his company was involved in a police project that required
a Russian-Mongolian and English interpreter, and that this
!"#$%== !"#$E !"#
OMMMPPPF !"#$%&'()*#+
!"#$%&'("!)*+,-./0123
!"#$%&'()*+,-./01234
!"#$%&'()*!+,-./01234
!"#$%&'()* +,-./01
!"#$%&'( NU !"#$ OQ required the translation skills of Ms Odsuren. The police
required no such interpreter. Each accused received 6
months' imprisonment.
In HKSAR v Wong Wai-man and Others (HCCC 333 of 2000),
three men were convicted of the murder of a loanshark whose
body was chopped into pieces and dumped at a refuse
collection point in Tai Po. This was a rare case where
convictions were secured in the absence of a body, and the
prosecution relied primarily upon confessional evidence. Two
of the accused were sentenced to life imprisonment, while a
third, aged under 18 years at the time of the offence, was
imprisoned for 24 years.
44
!"#
In HKSAR v Cheng Man-kit and Others (HCCC 69 of 2000),
!"#$%&'$()*+,
the accused were convicted of murder after a trial in the
!"#$==
OMMM SV F
!==At the Courts
!"#$E
Court of First Instance. The evidence showed that the victim
!"#$%&'()*+,-./"01234
!"#$%&'()%*+,
had met all of the accused through a friend she had made
-./01
in an Internet chat room. The accused lured the victim, a
!"#$%&'()*'+,-./012
researcher with the faculty of community medicine at Hong
!"#$%&'()*+,-./01234
Kong University, to a villa in Cheung Chau, and ambushed
her there wearing halloween masks. The accused told
!"#$%&'()*+,-./ 012.
police that they only intended to kidnap the victim because
!"#$%&'()*+,-./01234
she was rich, but that they suffocated her after she
!"#$%&'()*+, !-./0123
recognised them. The accused were caught by police after
they returned to the beach crevice where they had dumped
!"#$%#&'()*+!
the victim to check whether the corpse was properly
!"#$= = !"#$E
hidden. Each accused was sentenced to life imprisonment.
!"#
In HKSAR v Chow Kwok-leung and Others (DCCC 223 of
OMMN OOP F !"#$%&'()*+,
2001), four police officers were acquitted of offences of
!"#$%&'()*+,-./01234
assault occasioning actual bodily harm, perverting the course
!"#$%&'()*+,-./*012
of public justice and misleading police by making false
!"#$ %&'()*+,-./0123
statements. The prosecution alleged that a senior inspector, a
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012345
sergeant and two constables assaulted a television cameraman
during an interrogation at Tsuen Wan Police Station, and
!"#$%&'()*+,-./ 0123
thereafter took steps to cover up the offence. The judge
!"#$%&'!()*+,-.#$/"#0
concluded that although medical evidence was indicative of
!"#$%&
an assault there were doubts in the complainant's evidence,
in particular as to who assaulted him, and these had to be
resolved in the favour of the accused.
!!"== !"#$E ! OMMN NNF !"#$%&$'()OMMMS
!"#$%&'()*+,-./01234
!"#$%&'()*+,-./01234
!"#$%& PU !"#$%&'()
!"#$%&'()*+,-./01234
!"#$%&'() *+&,-./012
!"#$
!"#$%== E !"#$%&'
OMMN OVSM F !"#$%&'()*+,
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123
!"#$%#&'()*+,+-./012
!"#$? !"#$%&'()*+, !"#$%&'()*+,- ?
In Secretary for Justice v Cheung Chun-chin and
Others (AR 11 of 2001), six accused were convicted
of rioting at the Hei Ling Chau Drug Addiction Centre
in June 2000, and sentenced to terms of imprisonment
of between 2 and 3 years. The rioters damaged and
torched buildings, activated liquid petroleum gas
cylinders and injured 38 prison and police personnel
in armed attacks. On review, the Court of Appeal said
that the sentences were unduly lenient in terms of the
gravity and scale of the riot, and substituted terms of
imprisonment of between 31/2 and 51/2 years.
In HKSAR v Fung Yun-yuen (TWCC 2960 of 2001), the
accused pleaded guilty to communicating false
information on the existence of a bomb. The evidence
showed that in an attempt to stop his wife from leaving
him, he made an anonymous telephone report that there
was a bomb on the plane which was to take her to
Taiwan, and that this would explode after takeoff. In
sentencing the accused to 4 months' imprisonment, the
magistrate commented that 'after September this year,
any bomb warning incidents to the Airport Authority
would pose potential public alarm and fear.'
45
!"#$= = OMMN OMP F
!"#$E
!==At the Courts
!"#
In HKSAR v Wong Siu-kan and Others (DCCC 203 of 2001),
!"#$%&'()*$+,
eight accused were convicted after trial of triad-related offences
which included managing a triad society. The evidence
!"#$%&'()*+,-!"#./012
!"#$%&'()*+,E
!"#$%&'()* NS showed that the triad society, known as Luen Lok Tong or
!"#F
Hang Hau Lo Daan, was infiltrated by a police undercover
!"#$
agent who observed its activities for 16 months, and whose
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0(12
stomach was cut three times in triad initiation ceremonies. In
sentencing all but one of the accused to custodial sentences,
!"#$%&'$()*+,-./012
!"#$%&'()
the judge observed that deterrent sentences were generally
!"#$%&'(
imposed for triad activities under the Organised and Serious
!"#$%&'() !"#$%&'()
Crimes Ordinance, and that 'Triad societies are subversive
!
and dangerous organisations in Hong Kong.'
!"#$== E !"# OMMN RN F
In HKSAR v Cheung Siu-yui (HCCC 51 of 2001), a gas
salesman was convicted by a jury of the murder of a 24-year
!"#$%&'()*+,-./01
old female, whose half-naked body was found on the floor of
OQ !"#$%&'( )*+,-./012
her Yuen Long flat. The evidence showed that the accused
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012345
regularly delivered gas to the victim's flat, and that on the
!"#$%&'()* !"+*$,
night of the murder he went there and strangled her after a
!"#$%&'()*+,-.(/0123)
struggle. The DNA of the accused matched skin found
!"#$%&'( !"#)*+,-./0
underneath the fingernails of the victim, and there was at most
!"#$%&'()*+,-./012345
a one-in-374 billion chance that the skin was not his. In
sentencing the accused to life imprisonment, the judge
!"#$ !"#$%&'()*+,-.
commented that but 'for the recent advances in DNA
!"#$%&'(
technology, you would never have been brought to justice.'
46