THE QUEEN v. LEUNG CHI KWAN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1089 OF 1991

_____________________

BETWEEN

_________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. LEUNG Chi-kwan was originally charged with knowingly misleading a police officer by making a false statment. There had been a major investigation being carried out by the Anit-Triad Unit in Wanchai and the file relating to the case had been stolen in rather mysterious circumstances which appeared to indicate that a police officer was responsible for this theft. There was also an attack that had taken place involving a number of Triad people when three Chinese males have been attacked with beef-knives. The Appellant, a serving police officer, in an interveiw was asked if he knew a person called CHENG Kwok-tung which he denied. It subsequently transpired that they had a joint bank account book. There are a number of very unusual features about this particular case which would demonstrate in my judgment that this police sergeant of 18 years was closely involved with or intermeddling with matters affecting a police investigation. The matter is one of grave suspicion. Nevertheless, a sentence should only be passed for the offence which is proved.

    The Magistrate gave, if I may say so, a most clear statement of findings and sets out all the relveant matters and approached the difficult question of sentencing this police officer in a fair, thorough and proper manner. However, one matter, with respect, which he failed to take into consideration was that after 3 days or so of trial, the charge was amended. This was, in my judgment, obviously as a result of some deal which had been done between the Crown and the Defence. I say that in no critical way but it is matter that should have affected the sentence. The plea then tendered and accepted was an "attempt" to mislead. In my judgment that should carry a lesser sentence than the full offence. The Magistrate sets out his reasons and sentenced the appellant to 2 months' imprisonment on each charge consecutive. He said, the Appellant, an experienced sergeant when called upon to help and give evidence in a most serious criminal investigation gave deliberately misleading and false information. He said the fact that it appears no lasting damage was done is purely fortuitous. That in my judgment, does not reflect that the information which was given either was not believed or was really of a lesser value than would have been the case for the full offence. For that reason and that reason only I consider that I am entitled to interfere with this sentence. There would appear to be a number of grave and suspicious matters affecting this police officer's life but that is not for me to comment upon. I consider, that even though this was an attempt, as he is a police officer, he should face a period of imprisonment. I consider the period of imprisonment should be one month on each count consecutive. Having regard to all the factors which have been set out, justice is probably served in this case by suspending that sentence.