THE QUEEN v. NG CHI WAI AND ANOTHER

BETWEEN

The Queen

AND

NG Chi-wai (Dl)
LI Ying-ho (D2)

_____________

_____________

J U D G M E N T

_____________

Barker, J.A.:

1. These are two applications for leave to appeal against sentences of 18 years' imprisonment and 16 years" imprisonment which were passed against each of these two applicants. The main and most important and most serious charge against each of them was that they were manufactring a dangerous drug. And as has been pointed out many times and in particular in the case of the R.v. WONG Chun-ping⁽¹⁾, it is the manufacturing that is much more serious of the two charges and therefore requires a heavier sentence.

2. The judge when passing sentence in this case said this:

"This was a huge drug factory and the equipment found in the premises was enormous. There were, I am told,  three microwave ovens being used. "

3. And at the time of the arrest there was something over 21.5 kilos found of the dangerous drugs. As prosecuting counsel before the judge said, it was a large amount, it was a large operation and the value at street level of the drugs was something of the order of 1.8 million dollars.

4. The 1st applicant NG Chi-wai has had misfortunes. As a result of an accident he has had to have one of his legs amputated below the knee. We are told that he knew of two of the higher people involved in this syndicate and has given their names to the police and we are prepared to accept that, as was submitted to us, he was not the prime mover. But these are very very serious offences and although it may well be that the sentences so far as he was concerned were on the high side, we are totally unable to say that they were manifestly excessive. He has, through his counsel, told the court that he is prepared to give evidence if the people whom he has named are arrested and charged. If this happens and if he does give credible evidence then it will be a matter for the executive as to whether or not they reduce his sentence. So far as he is concerned, as I have said, we are unable to say that the sentences passed upon him were manifestly excessive and his application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

5. I turn then to the 2nd applicant. Much of what I have said about the 1st applicant applies equally to the 2nd applicant. It is perfectly clear that he was prepared to engage in this dreadful trade for gain. Furthermore, it is also clear that when he came before the lower court he had given his solicitor and counsel false instructions which, in all good faith, his counsel put forward before the judge as to the reason why he indulged in these offences. Nevertheless in his case, from a statement which we have before us from a police officer, it is quite clear that he has given reliable and important information to the police. People in his position are to be encouraged to co-operate with the police and to be encouraged to give them information whereby, if possible, the heads of syndicates can be arrested, charged, and convicted. It is for that reason and for that reason only that a reduction of this applicant's sentence is merited. Accordingly we grant the application for leave to appeal against sentence, we treat this application as the hearing of the appeal and we vary the sentence on the 1st charge to one of 16 years' imprisonment, the sentence on the 2nd charge will remain the same and so the total sentence will be one of 16 years.

(1)    (1983) Cr. App. 493