- 8 -
and incitements as they might impose in response of the substantive offence. As a result, section 90 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance, Cap 1 was amended to provide as follows:
“... where a person is convicted of … (b) conspiring … to commit an offence for which a maximum penalty is provided by any Ordinance, and no penalty is otherwise provided by any Ordinance for such conspiracy … he shall be liable to be sentenced to that maximum penalty.”
We noted only the maximum had been mentioned.
9. The common law offence of conspiracy was codified in Hong Kong by the Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance in 1996. When it was introduced to the Legislative Council, it was made clear that the penalty under section 159C was to “bring the penalty for conspiracy into line with that of the substantive offence.” As such the prosecution submitted that section 159C should be construed in such a way that the penalty for the conspiracy and for the substantive offence (including the maximum and minimum) should be the same. We also noted that the present 159C only mentioned the maximum.
10. After a careful consideration of all the authorities, we came to the view that in respect of the present case which all the defendants faced was only a conspiracy charge, the penalty banding as prescribed in NSL 22, whilst of reference value, should not be strictly applicable. Our reasons were as follow.
11. In interpreting penal provision, it was trite law that the relevant provision should be interpreted strictly and narrowly. When the wordings of the relevant provision appeared to be clear and without any ambiguity, the relevant provision should be read as such.
