《防止賄賂條例》中代理人定義？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HUNG JOHN TERENCE v HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION - 法院：終審法院 (Court of Final Appeal, CFA) - 法官：馬道立首席法官、包致金常任法官、陳兆愷常任法官 - 判決日期：2011年2月22日 ### 案情摘要 申請人洪約翰先生（HUNG JOHN TERENCE）因四項根據《防止賄賂條例》（香港法例第201章）第9(1)(a)及12(1)條提出的控罪，經區域法院審訊後被定罪。控罪涉及一項索取利益及三項接受利益，均作為代理人。上訴法庭維持原判。申請人現向終審法院申請上訴許可，理由包括法律論點及實質及嚴重不公。案情指申請人作為香港賽馬會（「馬會」）的投票會員，應朋友要求協助一名賽馬會員申請成為馬會全費會員，並加快處理其申請。申請人同意後，向該朋友索取並接受了多筆款項。控方認為這些款項是賄賂，而申請人則辯稱是無關的貸款。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議有二。首先，申請人爭辯《防止賄賂條例》中「代理人」和「主事人」應被視為具有特定法律意義的術語，即代理人必須能夠影響主事人與第三方的法律關係。其次，申請人聲稱控方未有傳召證人黃女士（Ms Wong）作供，構成實質及嚴重不公，因黃女士的證詞可能對申請人有利。 ### 判決理由 終審法院合議庭駁回申請人關於「代理人」和「主事人」定義的論點，指出這些詞語的含義取決於上下文，不應在民事法和刑事法之間劃定嚴格界線。法院強調應根據《防止賄賂條例》第2(1)條的釋義條文來理解。該條文指出「代理人」包括「任何受僱於或代他人行事的人」。法院認為，馬會投票會員在提名候選人成為全費會員時，是代表馬會行事，因此是馬會的代理人。關於控方未傳召黃女士作供的問題，法院認為控方有充分理由相信黃女士的證詞不可信或不真實，因此並未偏離公認的規範。 ### 引用案例與條文 HKSAR v. Fung Hok-cheung [2008] 5 HKLRD 846 R v. Russell-Jones [1995] 3 All ER 239 ### 裁決與命令 終審法院合議庭拒絕了申請人的上訴許可申請。法院認為申請人提出的法律論點不成立，且控方未傳召特定證人並不構成實質及嚴重不公。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了《防止賄賂條例》中「代理人」和「主事人」的廣泛解釋，強調其含義應根據條例的釋義條文和具體語境來確定，而非僅限於民事法中的嚴格定義。此外，判決也闡明了控方在決定是否傳召證人時的酌情權，只要有充分理由，即使證詞可能對控方不利，控方亦可不傳召該證人。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: HUNG JOHN TERENCE v HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION - Court: Court of Final Appeal (CFA) - Judge: Chief Justice Ma, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ - Date of Judgment: 22 February 2011 ### Factual Background The applicant, Mr John Hung, was convicted in the District Court on four charges under sections 9(1)(a) and 12(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap.201. These included one charge of soliciting an advantage and three charges of accepting an advantage, all as an agent. The Court of Appeal affirmed all convictions. Mr Hung sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on grounds of a point of law and substantial and grave injustice. The case involved Mr Hung, a voting member of the Hong Kong Jockey Club (the "Club"), being approached by a friend to assist a racing member in applying for full membership and expediting the process. Mr Hung agreed and subsequently solicited and received several sums of money. The prosecution alleged these were bribes, while Mr Hung claimed they were unrelated loans. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issues in this case were twofold. Firstly, the applicant contended that the terms "agent" and "principal" in the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance should be interpreted as legal terms of art, meaning an agent must be able to affect the principal's legal relations with a third party. Secondly, the applicant argued that the prosecution's failure to call Ms Wong as a witness constituted a substantial and grave injustice, as her testimony might have been favourable to the applicant. ### Ratio Decidendi The Appeal Committee rejected the applicant's argument regarding the definition of "agent" and "principal," stating that the meaning of these words depends on the context and should not be strictly divided between civil and criminal law. The Court emphasized that the interpretation clause in section 2(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance should be applied. This clause states that "agent" includes "a public servant and any person employed by or acting for another." The Court found that a voting member of the Club acts for the Club when proposing candidates for full membership, thus making them an agent of the Club. Regarding the prosecution's failure to call Ms Wong, the Court determined that the prosecution had good reason to consider her account incredible or unbelievable, and therefore, there was no departure from accepted norms. ### Key Precedents & Statutes HKSAR v. Fung Hok-cheung [2008] 5 HKLRD 846 R v. Russell-Jones [1995] 3 All ER 239 ### Decision & Orders The Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal. The Court found that the legal points raised by the applicant were not sustainable, and the prosecution's decision not to call a particular witness did not amount to a substantial and grave injustice. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the broad interpretation of "agent" and "principal" under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, emphasizing that their meaning should be determined by the Ordinance's interpretation clause and specific context, rather than a strict civil law definition. Furthermore, the decision clarifies the prosecution's discretion in calling witnesses, allowing them not to call a witness if there are good reasons to believe their testimony is incredible or unbelievable, even if it might be unfavourable to the prosecution's case. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.