Ch’ng Poh was a dishonest criminal appealing against conviction. His solicitor, ‘A’, was a partner in a firm of solicitors. To improve the prospects of a successful appeal by CP, bribes were offered through ‘A’ by CP to two individuals. A warrant based on an alleged breach of s.9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance in Hong Kong authorised officers of the ICAC to search the premises of the firm where ‘A’ was a partner. This warrant was based on the assertion that ‘A’ had offered bribes to others on behalf of CP, not that he had received a hidden or any other benefit from CP which might have any effect on the services rendered to CP by the firm. He was, in the language of the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong, doing ‘his client’s dirty work’ by engaging in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by offering bribes designed to improve his client’s prospects. The warrant was quashed by the High Court Judge and his decision was upheld in the Court of Appeal in Hong Kong.
Held: The appeal failed. The bribes offered by ‘A’ were not offered in relation to the affairs of his firm, but exclusively to the affairs of his client. Therefore the warrant, in effect taking effect against the firm, was not supportable.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick said: ‘. . for the section to apply, the person offering the bribe must have intended the act or forbearance of the agent to influence or affect the principal’s affairs. Accordingly section 9 would apply if Ch’ng Poh had bribed Mr. A. to secure him a benefit at X Co’s expense, for example, to arrange a reduction in X Co’s ordinary professional fees; or if X Co were induced to act in a way in which they would not otherwise have acted. Thus it is an essential ingredient of the offence under section 9 that the action or forbearance of the agent should be aimed at the principal. If it is sufficient for the purposes of the person offering the bribe that the agent should act on his own without involving his principal then, what ever other offence may have been committed, it was not a corrupt transaction with an agent . .’.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nolan, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Clyde
[1997] UKPC 28, [1997] 1 WLR 1175
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Distinguished – Majeed v Regina CACD 31-May-2012
The three defendants appealed convictions on a plea of guilty of corruption for ‘spot fixing’ as a player in cricket matches. The defendants had signed contracts not to do anything to bring the Pakistan Cricket Board into disrepute and to comply . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 October 2021; Ref: scu.159238