Liu Kwok Wah And Others v The Queen

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 259 OF 1966

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

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. Despite the careful and persuasive argument put forward by Mr. Shears on behalf of the three appellants, we are fully satisfied that there is no substance in these appeals and they must accordingly be dismissed.

2. The appellants were convicted of the offence of common law conspiracy: the particulars of that charge were "that the appellants on divers dates between the 14th of February, 1966 and the 22nd day of March, 1966, conspired corruptly to give monies to Thomas Allen Hunter HODSON, a Chief Inspector in the Immigration Department of the Hong Kong Government, on account of his approving certain applications made under the Immigration (Control and Offences) Ordinance, No.34 of 1958, being matters in which the said Immigration Department is, and then was, concerned."

3. The main prosecution witness was a man named HODSON, a Chief Inspector in the Immigration Department. The case for the Crown was that on the late afternoon of the 14th of February, the 3rd appellant, PANNU, an officer in the Prisons Department, as a result of an appointment he had earlier made that same morning with HODSON, went to see HODSON at about 5:30 that afternoon in his office at the Immigration Department. PANNU was well known to HODSON since they had both worked together in the Prisons Department in which HODSON had been previously employed before he joined the Immigration Department. After some general conversation PANNU told HODSON that he, in his capacity as a Chief Immigration Officer in the Immigration Department, could make a lot of money, and that he, PANNU, would introduce him to a friend with whom they could discuss this scheme. HODSON pretended to be interested and it was arranged that they should meet two days later.

4. However, after the interview had terminated HODSON immediately went upstairs and informed his superior officer what had taken place, and it is apparent that thereafter HODSON acted in co-operation with, and under the instructions of, the Anti-Corruption Branch of the Hong Kong Police.

5. Two days later at about 5:30 in the afternoon at a hotel bar, PANNU introduced HODSON to the person who was to unfold the details of the nefarious enterprise - he was, in fact, the 2nd appellant. The arrangement was that HODSON, in his official capacity, was to approve applications for entry visas or extensions of stay in Hong Kong. The departmental file number of those applications was to be given to HODSON and the file itself would be passed to him by someone in the office. It was apparent, therefore, that some third person, an employee in the Immigration Department itself, was to be a party to the scheme. In consideration of his services, HODSON was to be paid on a sliding scale according to the nature of the entry visas or applications for extension of time that he approved. The third conspirator was, in fact, the 1st appellant. It was by him, or through him, that the relevant files were subsequently passed to HODSON for action.

6. A further meeting took place between the three appellants and HODSON, and HODSON in fact received from PANNU the total sum of some $25,098, in different sums and at different times for his services. The whole of this amount he passed over to the Anti-Corruption Branch.

7. On the afternoon of the 22nd March the three appellants were arrested by the police in the presence of HODSON at a restaurant to which they had all repaired for further discussions in connection with this nefarious enterprise. It was, in fact, HODSON who had telephoned to the police from the restaurant informing them that he and the appellants were there. HODSON had upon him in his wallet at the time when the police arrived the sum of $5,900, part of which bad been given to him by PANNU earlier that afternoon and part of which was given to him by PANNU in the restaurant itself in the presence of the other appellants.

8. The learned judge, as he was entitled to do, fully accepted and believed the testimony of HODSON, who was of course not an accomplice, and there was upon his evidence alone quite sufficient ground, if believed, to support these convictions.

9. However, it would appear that an officer of the Anti-Corruption Branch, a Mr. IRVING, had entrusted to HODSON a tape-recorder for use by him at the various interviews he had with one or other or all of the appellants. That tape-recorder and the five reels used to record the conversations that took place were admitted in evidence. Furthermore, re-recordings of those reels were made by Mr. IRVING and produced in evidence together with a transcript prepared by him of the contents of those reels or tape-recordings. It is the admission of these tape-recordings...