THE QUEEN v. WONG PUI HO AND ANOTHER

_______________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Mayo, J., delivered the judgment of the Court.

1. The 1st and 2nd Applicants together with two other men were charged with a conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs between December 1987 and February 1988. The third man was acquitted of the charge. The 1st and 2nd Applicant and the 4th man were convicted of the charge. This was after a trial in the District Court before Judge Chua. The 4th man has abandoned his appeal against conviction and sentence. The 1st Applicant has abandoned his appeal against conviction.

2. The 1st Applicant was a serving officer in the Correctional Services Department. The 2nd Applicant was and at the present time still is serving a term of imprisonment in relation to another offence at Stanley Prison where the 1st Applicant was performing duties in the finger-printing section.

3. The scheme of the conspiracy was the other two men 1 have referred to who were friends of the 2nd Applicant would sell some of the 2nd Applicant's personal belongings including a gold chain which were held by the prison authorities and give the proceeds of sale to a Madam Fung. The 1st Applicant would then attend upon Madam Fung and obtain from her packets of dangerous drugs which he would in turn bring into Stanley Prison and they would then be sold to other prisoners. The proceeds of sale would be used by the 2nd Applicant to discharge the debts ho had incurred as a result of heavy gambling with other prison inmates.

4. The scheme was not sucessful. The other men succeeded in obtaining some of the 2nd Applicant's personal items but the proceeds of sale were insufficient to enable them to obtain sufficient funds to both purchase the planned quantity of dangerous drugs and also to provide the agreed sum of $3,000 which was the payment which had been agreed to secure the 1st Applicant's participation in the scheme.

5. The whole matter came to light as a result of investigations which were being made by the Independent Commission Against Corruption into a case involving another serving officer in the Correctional Services Department.

6. All four men were interviewed by staff members of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The 1st, 2nd and 4th Applicants made inculpatory statements and the 3rd man made an exculpatory statement.

7. The Applicants contested the admissibility of the statments and voir dices were heard. Judge Chua gave detailed reasons why she accepted the prosecution evidence and rejected the Applicants evidence. At the conclusion of the voir dines she admitted all the statements as evidence.

8. It is clear from Judge Chua's reasons for verdict that she accepted the truth of the contents of the statements. The statments were in a lengthy question and answer format and so far as the 2nd Applicant is concerned there is sufficient material to support the conspiracy pleaded in the particulars of the charge.

9. The 2nd Applicant in his grounds of appeal against conviction makes the complaint that Judge Chua should not have accepted his statement as evidence. The other complaints made by the 2nd Applicant do not take matters further as it is clear from the said reasons for verdict that there was no other evidence against the Applicants besides the material in the cautioned statements.

10. Before us the 2nd Applicant complains that the trial judge refused to let him call witnessess to testify for him at his trial. There is nothing in the record of the proceedings to support this allegation We can only conclude that the 2nd Applicant must have, misunderstood the position. The 2nd Applicant also complained that the Mr. Lung, who is prosecution witness no.3, had been in court taking notes before giving evidence. This matter was raised before Judge Chua and it transpired that the witness had for the greater part of the tiny been in another court. We can see no merit in this objection. We can see no reason to interfere with judge Chua’s conclusions.

11. Accordingly we would dismiss this application for leave to appeal against conviction.

SENTENCE

12. We will not rehearse the facts again. What is very clear is this was a serious case. The Applicants were convicted of a conspiracy to bring dangerous drugs into Stanley Prison. The 1st Applicant was a serving Correctional Services Officer and the 2nd Applicant was a prisoner.

13. Mr. Stevenson for the 1st Applicant argued that the 1st Applicant had withdrawn from the conspiracy at an early stage. In particular, he placed reliance upon the reply which has given to question 32 of the Statement, namely that the 1st Applicant had decided to refrain from further action. There was no evidence whatever to support this contention and we can see no merit in this submission.

14. Mr. Stevenson also suggested that the trial judge sentenced the 1st Applicant in respect of matters which went beyond the charge. There seems to be little or no substance in this complaint.

15. The 2nd Applicant, Mr. Szeto, claimed that his sentence was excessive. In particular he drew our attention to what he claimed to be the disparity between the sentence which was imposed in the present case and the sentence which was imposed in the case involving Mr. Kwong the other prison officer who is referred to in the proceedings.

16. Each case does, of course, have to be dealt with on its own merits. We are entirely satisfied that having regard to all the circumstances the sentences which were imposed were entirely right and we have seen no reason whatever to interfere with them. We would dismiss these applications for leave to appeal against sentence.