YEUNG KIT-PING v. THE QUEEN

CACC000103/1979

IN THE SUPREME COURT	Criminal Appeal
	1979 No. 103

BETWEEN
	YEUNG Kit-ping alias KWAN YEUNG Kit-ping alias Patricia KWAN	Appellant
	AND
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

-----------------

Coram: Cons, J.

Date of Judgment: 17 April 1979

 

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

 

1. This is an appeal by Mrs. Patricia Kwan against a conviction under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201. Three particular grounds have been filed in addition to the general grounds. The first and third have been withdrawn and, with respect, I think they would in any event have failed. The second ground succeeds.

2. Mrs. Kwan was, or is, the laundry supervisor at the Peninsula Hotel. She has worked for that hotel for many years and was appointed to that particular position in June of last year. The laundry system appears to be this: The particular items of clothing are collected from the hotel guests by valet boys, who bring them to them laundry department on the first or mezzanine floor of the hotel. This is where Mrs. Kwan presides. The actual laundry work is done on the roof-top. There a number of amahs operate on their own separate accounts. They come down to the laundry department, collect whatever items of clothing are allocated to them separately by Mrs. Kwan and take them to the roof-top where they are laundered and pressed. The amahs then return them to the laundry department. The amahs are paid piece rates according to the particular work they have done. At the time that Mrs. Kwan took over the valet boys were discontented with their pay. To improve the position they suggested that they relieve the amahs of the task of carrying the laundry up and downstairs and that in return the amahs should pay them a small percentage of their earnings. The amahs, who understandably earn considerably more than the boys, were sympathetic and agreed in principle, but contended for a fixed monthly amount rather than a percentage. Mrs. Kwan approached the management of the hotel who categorically refused to allow anything of the kind. The matter was dropped.

3. Some two months later it was the amahs' turn to be discontented. There had been many complaints about the standard of their work, in particular, it would seem, about the time they took to do "express" work. It got to the stage where management had to speak to them directly. Later the same day and possibly in an attempt to justify themselves, they raised complaints as to their working conditions. In order to ease the situation Mrs. Kwan privately suggested to them that they could pay the valet boys to bring the work up and take it down again as had previously been suggested. I am not sure whether the amahs agreed or not or whether the valet boys were even consulted. I doubt it, for there was an immediate complaint to the I.C.A.C. However on these facts Mrs. Kwan was convicted under section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance which deals with corrupt transactions with agents and makes it an offence for any agent to solicit an advantage on account of showing favour to any person in relation to his principal's affairs.

4. In my view a conviction for that offence puts too great a strain upon the particular facts of this case. That is reflected in the difficulty which the Crown found in suitably framing the charge. What Mrs. Kwan did was to encourage a private arrangement between the valet boys and the amahs. If that arrangement had gone forward she would have turned a blind eye. Since that arrangement had already been explicitly forbidden by her superiors in addition to the general rules of the hotel, it seems to me that it was a very reprehensible act on her part. But it is a distortion of the facts to say that she was corruptly showing favour to the amahs. The conviction and fine must be set aside.

 

Representation:

Mr. D.A.L. Wright and Mr. Martin Lee and Mr. R. Liu (C.Y. Kwan & Co.) for the appellant.

Roger Maxwell, Crown Counsel, for the Crown/respondent.