HKSAR v. CHUI SING CHI GRACE

[2018] HKMagC 4

KCCC 788/2018

IN THE KOWLOON CITY MAGISTRATES’ COURTS OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO KCCC 788 OF 2018

_________________________

________________________

CORRIGENDA

________________________

Please note the following corrigenda in the Reasons for Verdict dated 15 October 2018: -

(1) Page 4, paragraph 6 of the Reasons for Verdicts: -

“All along, the defendant must have been known of her family members’ entitlement to such services.”

Should read as

“All along, the defendant must have known of her family members’ entitlement to such services.”

(2)  Page 12, paragraph 31 of the Reasons for Verdicts: -

“The defendant in Shum Kwok Sher’s case was a Chief Property Manager in government employ.”

Should read as

“The defendant in Shum Kwok Sher’s case was a Chief Property Manager in government employ.”

(3)  Page 16, paragraph 37 of the Reasons for Verdicts: -

“In R v W(M)⁵⁵, a decision which has triggered mixed responses from legal scholars, a police officer was supplied with a credit card for work purposes...”

Should read as

“in R v W(M) ⁵⁵, a decision which has triggered mixed responses from legal scholars, a police officer was supplied with a credit card for work purpose…”

(4) Page 28, paragraph 69 of the Reasons for Verdicts: -

“If the defence had not sought specific discovery, one wonders what would the prosecution’s failure to make disclosure of the handwritten notes – unasked – have done to due process?”

Should read as

“If the defence had not sought specific discovery, one wonders what would the prosecution’s failure to make disclosure of the handwritten notes – unasked – have done to due process.”

(5) Page 34, paragraph 88 of the Reasons for Verdict: -

“…the court draws the only reasonable and irresistible inference as follows:

(i) …

(ii) …

(iii) …

(iv) …

(iv) …”

Should read as

“…the court draws the only reasonable and irresistible inference as follows:

(i) …

(ii) …

(iii) …

(iv) …

(v) …”

(6)  Page 35, paragraph 91 of the Reasons for Verdict: -

“…the prosecution must prove that the defendant has acted dishonestly in accordance with R v Ghosh.”

Should read as

“…the prosecution must prove that the defendant has acted dishonestly in accordance with the test in R V Ghosh.”

(7)  Page 37, paragraph 99 of the Reasons for Verdict: -

“On the issue of dishonesty in situations of misfeasance in public office, the High Court of Australia said in North Territory of Australia v Mengel,…”

Should read as

“On the issue of dishonesty in situations of misfeasance in public office, the High Court of Australia in Northern Territory of Australia v Mengel,…”

(8) Page 37, paragraph 100 of the Reasons for Verdict: -

“…, the court is not prepared to attach any weight at all on the exculpation part of the defendant’s answer to the Questionnaire…”

Should read as

“…, the court is not prepared to attach any weight at all on the exculpatory part of the defendant’s answer to the Questionnaire…”

(9) Page 39, paragraph 105 of the Reasons for Verdict: -

“But where the prosecution is unable to prove such a secondary motive, it does not necessarily mean that the dishonest requirement is not fulfilled.”

Should read as

“But where the prosecution is unable to prove such a secondary motive, it does not necessarily mean that the dishonesty requirement is not fulfilled.”

(10) page 40, in between paragraph 109 and 110 of the Reasons for Verdict: -

“(4) “Serious, not trivial”

Should read as

“(4) “Serious, not trivial”

(11) page 42, paragraph 114 of the Reasons for Verdict: -

“The fact that the defendant’s family members were entitled to alternative public medical services at out-patient and family clinics is…”

Should read as

“The fact that the defendant’s family members were entitled to alternative public medical services at out-patient and families clinics is…”

(12) page 43, paragraph 116 of the Reasons for Verdict: -

“…public resources that are of obvious importance, because the laboratories reports contained technical information of diagnostic significance.”

Should read as

“…public resources that are of obvious importance, because the laboratory reports contained technical information of diagnostic significance.”

Dated this 15 October 2018