Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Ng Siu Chau v Hksar

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date10 May 1999
Year1999
Judgement NumberFAMC11/1999
Subject MatterMiscellaneous Proceedings (Criminal)
CourtCourt of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
FAMC000011/1999 NG SIU CHAU v. HKSAR

FAMC000011/1999

FAMC No. 11 of 1999

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 11 OF 1999 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM CACC NO. 118 OF 1998)

_____________________

Between:
NG SIU CHAU Applicant
AND
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION Respondent

_____________________

Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Litton PJ, Mr Justice Ching PJ and Mr Justice Bokhary PJ

Date of Hearing: 10 May 1999

Date of Determination: 10 May 1999

_______________________________

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

_______________________________

Mr Justice Bokhary PJ:

1. This applicant faced seven charges. Each charge was of offering an advantage, contrary to s.4(1)(a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201. The allegation under each charge was that he had offered money to an apprentice jockey to ride in such a manner as to fix a horse race.

2. He was tried before HH Judge Longley in the District Court. The judge convicted him. By a majority (Mayo and Stuart-Moore JJA, Nazareth VP dissenting) the Court of Appeal affirmed his convictions. He now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal in order to advance the point on which Nazareth VP dissented in his favour.

3. Quite simply, the point is that on the facts which emerged apprentice jockeys are not in law employees of the Jockey Club. If the point is sound, then the applicant's convictions cannot stand. This is because it is an essential ingredient of the offence of which he was convicted that the offeree is a public servant. The Jockey Club is a public body. So apprentice jockeys would be public servants if ? but only if ? they are employees of the Jockey Club.

4. Is the point one of great and general importance? And is it reasonably arguable?

5. The Court of Appeal refused to certify the point as one of great and general importance, giving these reasons for such refusal:

" Whenever a determination has to be made whether or not any particular employee is a public servant it will be necessary to consider the facts surrounding the employment and the circumstances of the employment.

Any decision which is reached by the Court of Final Appeal on apprentice jockeys will not be of any great assistance in...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT