TSE PING WANG v. HKSAR

Not for circulation
FAMC No. 18 of 2000

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 18 OF 2000 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM CACC NO. 524 OF 1999)

_____________________

___________________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

___________________________

Mr Justice Chan PJ:

1. The applicant was convicted after trial in the District Court of two counts of offering an advantage, contrary to s.4 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201. He was given concurrent sentences of four years imprisonment on each count.

2. His appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal but his sentence was reduced to three years.

3. He now applies for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and for extension of time to do so.

4. He raises two grounds basically complaining that the trial judge as well as the Court of Appeal had misinterpreted and misunderstood the facts and come to the wrong conclusion and that the trial judge was biased against him. No point of law has been formulated to us for consideration. We take it that the applicant is relying on the ground that there is substantial and grave injustice done to him.

5. We have carefully considered his written and oral submissions. We have also looked at the transcript of his record of interview to the ICAC. The main evidence against him was, of course, his own statement given at the interview. There were also some witnesses who testified, to some extent, in support of the second count. We do not accept that there was any basis for the applicant's application. The trial judge was, on the evidence before him, entitled to conclude that the applicant's statement to the ICAC was given voluntarily and amounted to a confession that he knew or at least believed that what he did was taking corrupt money to two police officers on behalf of Mr Lau. The applicant is unable to give any particulars of bias on the part of the trial judge. The Court of Appeal had correctly dismissed his appeal.

6. In these circumstances, we do not think that there can be any reasonably arguable ground to support the contention that there is any substantial and grave injustice done to the applicant. We refuse the application for time and the application for leave to appeal.