THONG CHAN SOI v. THE QUEEN

CACC000059/1981

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT
	Criminal Appeal
	1981, No. 59

 

BETWEEN
	THONG CHAN SOI	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Barker, J.

Date of Judgment: 6th March, 1981.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. In this case Mr. Thong Chan Soi was convicted before the magistrate at San Po Kong of offering an advantage to an agent and he was fined $500 and ordered to forfeit $100 which was the subject of the advantage. What happened was that he and his family of Vietnamese refugees were living in a temporary transit centre at Kai Tak North and unfortunately serious difficulties arose between his family and his family's neighbours and because of these serious difficulties the appellant wished to move. He therefore went to see a Mr. Wong Pui-lam who is employed by the Red Cross as a clerk and who is the person responsible for the allocation of accommodation. He gave to Mr. Wong a completed application form for a change of accommodation inside which was concealed a $100 note. This was done, I am satisfied, solely for the purpose of trying to get his application dealt with more expeditiously.

2. The matter was reported to the I.C.A.C. who very properly brought the prosecution. When he appeared before the magistrate the appellant pleaded guilty. The offence undoubtedly was committed and the plea of guilty was therefore a correct one. But it has also to be added that it is not easy to envisage a less serious case of attempted bribery than this. The reason why the appellant appeals against his sentence is not as his counsel realistically concedes because the sentence is manifestly excessive but because the appellant and all his family have made application to go to the United States of America where the appellant's father-in-law already lives.

3. As Mr. Justice Silke said in the case of La Le-hai of the 4th January 1980, in ordinary circumstances he did not think that possible emigration to another country should be a factor in considering whether or not an offender should have a conviction recorded against him. And with that observation I respectfully agree. But in my judgment this is an exceptional case and the order I make is this: that I quash the sentence and I invoke the provisions of section 36 of the Magistrates' Ordinance and I bind the appellant over in his own bond of $100 to appear within the space of one year for conviction and sentence if called upon. In other words I give him a conditional discharge and I make that order without recording a conviction.

 

Representation:

P. Nguyen (D.L.A.) for Appellant

T. Freeman for Crown/Respondent