LEE SHING-KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC001308/1977
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL | |
| Criminal Appeal | |
| 1977 No. 1308 |
-----------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| LEE Shing-keung | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Huggins, J.A.
Date of Judgment: 19th January 1978.
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
1. This Appellant filed notice of appeal against his conviction on a charge of offering a bribe to a public officer. Before me he has sought leave also to appeal against sentence. He said at first that he had appealed against both but then admitted that he had not done so.
2. This is one of those very difficult cases which depends entirely upon the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses on each side. In saying that I do not overlook that the burden of proof was on the prosecution. There was ample evidence, if believed, to justify conviction. The Appellant was arrested for being in possession of property which was suspected to have been stolen. He was convicted of an offence under the Summary Offences Ordinance in respect of that property and has not appealed, but the police officer said that on his arrest the Appellant produced $30 and asked him not to bring a charge. The Appellant flatly denied that and made the counter allegation that he was ordered to empty his pockets and that the constable removed $30 from his wallet. It was for the learned magistrate to decide whether the police officer was telling the truth, and he was satisfied that he was. It is quite impossible for me to say that he came to a wrong conclusion.
3. However, the sentence of nine months' imprisonment consecutive to the one month's imprisonment for the unlawful possession offence does seem to me to be very much too heavy. This Appellant was a first offender. Offences of bribery cannot be treated lightly and the police must be protected against offers of bribes, but in all the circumstances I think that a sentence of three months' imprisonment consecutive would be sufficient to meet the gravity of this offence and I allow the appeal to that extent.
19th January 1978.
Representation: