R. v. TSUI YING HUNG

1992, No. 289
(Criminal)

H E A D N O T E

Reduction of sentence for giving evidence for the Crown - Quantum - Procedure where such evidence given after sentencing at first instance (Re Charles Warwick Reid, Civil Appeal No. 149 of 1993, January 12, 1994, (unreported)).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1992, No. 289
(Criminal)

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Bokhary JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence.

2. On July 15, 1992, this applicant, a former police officer in his thirties who had pleaded guilty to one count or robbery at a supermarket in Nathan Road in January that year, was sentenced by Deputy Judge Burrell to seven years' imprisonment. The robbers were armed with knives. Staff members and customers were tied up. The vice manager of the supermarket was forced to open the safe. Both the safe and the cash register were rifled.

3. In all the circumstances, as things stood at the time of sentencing in the court below, the applicant would have no ground for complaint against the sentence which he received.

4. Since then, however, he has given evidence for the Crown against one of the other robbers, who was convicted solely upon his evidence. A substantial reduction is warranted here.

5. When an offender comes over to the side of the law by giving evidence for the Crown, even though he does so in the hope of an immediate reward by way of a reduction in sentence, that is nevertheless some indication that he is amenable to reform in the long-term.

6. Moreover, whatever his motives, such an offender makes a positive contribution to the fright against crime. In addition to bringing offenders to book, it discourages crime on the whole by giving potential offenders one more reason, the prospect of betrayal, to think again before breaking the law. Such contributions are, therefore, much to be encouraged. And that, in practical terms, means that they must be adequately rewarded.

7. The sentencing process remains extant. That process continues into the appellate stage. It would not be appropriate simply to leave the applicant's "reward" for the Executive to deal with under article 15 of the Letters Patent. This Court should deal with the matter itself. We made clear in the recent case of Re Charles Warwick Reid, Civil Appeal No. 149 of 1993, January 12, 1994, (unreported).

8. Returning to the quantum of the reward, the general considerations are those which we have already stated. From those, we turn to the facts of the present case because, at the end of the day, each case must turn on its own facts.

9. In the present case, the contribution was substantial. It was made at some risk of reprisal. And, in the result, it was fruitful from the point of view of the forces of law and order. In our view, the reduction suggested by Mr Kelly on behalf of the applicant, two years, is the appropriate one to make.

10. Treating the application as the appeal, we allow it by reducing the appellant's seven-year term by two years to a term of five years.