曾啟榮

今天明報報導曾志偉的父親曾啟榮在台灣逝世，明報報導事件的背景資料其實並不正確，曾啟榮當年並非被控串謀貪汚，而是串謀妨礙司法公正(conspiracy to obstruct the course of public justice)，上訴聆訊在1975年而非1976年進行，我這樣講是揭過老皇曆，讀過當年律政司(1997前的叫法，現在叫律政司司長)申請判刑上訴才敢講，有關案例原文，在下面張貼，是十分簡單，報導馬虎的案例。曾啟榮當年是油麻地警署的「咩渣」，那是老一脫的叫法，80年以後叫「時沙」，即英文Station Seageant簡寫S/Sgt的發音。判刑上訴另一個被告是探長Detective Station Seageant (D/S/Sgt)歐陽坤，他同樣駐守油麻地。曾啟榮和歐陽坤承認控罪，前者判監一年，但獲緩刑一年，後者判監一年，即時入獄。律政司不服刑期過短manifestly inadequate, 最後兩人都加刑至3年監禁。所謂緩刑suspended sentence 是根據香港法例221章刑事程序條例第109B條作出。被判緩刑的人，只要在緩刑期間不犯法，而致被定罪，就不用坐牢。犯了法而沒有被定罪，也無需服刑。就算犯了法繼而被定罪，也不一定要服原本的刑期，執行緩刑，法庭有權代以較長或較短刑期(per section 109C)。覆核刑期時，歐陽坤正在服刑，所以不能潛逃。但曾啟榮只是判了緩刑，所以評估形勢，一走了之，沒有到庭。否則當上訴庭批准加刑申請，便會鎯鐺入獄。

1979年署理港督姬達(Sir Jack Cater)訪問中大，小弟是被預先安排可對他發問的學生代表之一，當時問了他為何在警察持槍衝擊廉署總部而實行特赦，法治何在。署理督爺曾經是亷署一哥，當然沒有正面回答，衝擊一事必定芒刺在背。





CAAR000007/1975


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)


APPLICATION FOR REVIEW NO. 7 OF 1975

-----------------
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Applicant
and
TSANG Wing @ TSANG

Respondent
Kai-wing
-----------------
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW NO. 8 OF 1975

----------------
BETWEEN:

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Applicant

and

AUYEUNG Kwan

Respondent


Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & Pickering, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 30th April, 1975.

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

DECISION

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

These two applications for review were heard together. Each of the respondents pleaded guilty to a single charge of conspiracy. The respondent, TSANG Wing was sentenced to one year's imprisonment, which was suspended for one year, and the respondent, AUYEUNG Kwan, was sentenced to one year's imprisonment to take effect immediately.

In 1971 one N.E. Temple was the Superintendent-in-Charge of the Yaumati Divisional Police Station. At that time the respondent TSANG Wing was Station Sergeant in the Uniform Branch at that police station. The respondent AUYEUNG Kwan was also stationed at the Yaumati Divisional Police Station where he held the rank of Detective Station Sergeant on trial. An arrangement was made between Mr. Temple and the two respondents whereby the two respondents collected "squeeze" money from various sex establishments such as girlie bars, bathrooms, brothels etc., and also from illegal gambling establishments and off-course greyhound and horse-racing betting stalls. The actual collections were done by "runners" who handed money over to the respondents at regular intervals. On each occasion when this was done the respondents paid Mr. Temple a percentage of the money received.

The respondent TSANG Wing retired from the Hong Kong Police Force in May 1972 after some 32 years' service. The respondent AUYEUNG Kwan retired from the Force in August 1973 after some 24 years' service.

In September 1974 certain inquiries were made by the Independent Commission against Corruption as to the standard of living maintained by Mr. Temple. It was thought that he may have been committing an offence under section 10(1)(a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. After these inquiries had been started, Mr. Temple made a full disclosure of his affairs and stated that he had £80,000 sterling of corrupt money in his possession. This was money which had been paid to him while he was the Divisional Superintendent of Yaumati Police Station in 1971/72. He pleaded guilty to an offence under section 10(1)(b) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance on February 14th, 1975 and was sentenced to a period of twelve months' imprisonment. He had already arranged for the sum of £80,000 sterling to be Paid to the Crown. As a result of that confession the facts on which these applications for review are based came to light.

As we have said, each of the respondents pleaded guilty to an offence of conspiracy to obstruct the course of public justice. The case for the Crown is that the sentence on each of the respondents of one year's imprisonment is manifestly inadequate. In addition, it is the Crown's case that the suspension of the sentence of one year in the case of the respondent TSANG Wing is wrong in princple. We agree with these submissions. We think that the sentence in each case is manifestly inadequate and we think that to suspend a sentence in a case of this nature is wrong in principle.

For the respondents, great reliance was placed on the sentence of one year's imprisonment passed in the case of Temple. We agree with Mr. Yu, who appeared for the respondents, that that case and the present cases may be considered, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable.

The Attorney General did not think it right to apply for a review of the sentence in the case of Temple, for reasons which seemed to him to be proper. But the fact that he did not apply for a review does not necessarily mean that he accepted that the sentence of one year passed by the trial judge was an adequate sentence. We, and we say this emphatically, do not accept that that sentence was a proper sentence; indeed, on the information before us, we think that it was manifestly inadequate.

We will allow these applications and we will substitute for the sentences passed by the trial judge in each case a sentence of three years' imprisonment and we would remark that we do not pass a greater sentence only because these are review proceedings. We regret that in the result a more senior officer who received the lion's share of the booty escapes more lightly than his junior colleagues. But the case of Temple is not before us.


(Geoffrey Briggs)

President.