R. v. CHAN HEI KAM

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No. 366
(Criminal)

__________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Liu JA:

1. On 4 November 1993, the applicant was intercepted by the police with ninety small packets of dangerous drugs on his person. The aggregate quantity was 44.69 grammes of a mixture containing 13.89 grammes of salts of esters of morphine. He was tried on a charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug before Deputy Judge Christie in the District Court and was convicted and sentenced to three and half years' imprisonment.

2. The applicant now applies for leave to appeal against his sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive and/or wrong in principle. The gravamen of his complaint is that he was not given a sufficient discount for having given information to the police subsequent to his arrest that led to the seizure of over six kilogrammes of heroin and the arrest of a major drug trafficker.

3. The Deputy Judge discounted from the starting point of five years for trafficking a period of three months for the applicant's admission that he had been in possession of the ninety small packets of drugs found on his person notwithstanding that he had fought the case on the basis that he had acquired them for his own consumption and that he was not a trafficker. It was submitted by Mr McCoy, counsel for the applicant, that the discount of 25% given by the judge failed to give sufficient credit for the applicant's valuable cooperation with the police resulting, as it did, in the arrest of a major drug trafficker.

4. Mr Reading, counsel for the Crown, informed us that the applicant would not be required to serve his sentence in an institution with the general prison population but would be sent to Siu Lam where special facilities exist for the protection of prisoners who inform on other criminals. Mr McCoy submitted however that, even so, the applicant's family remain at risk of underworld retribution and that in all the circumstances a discount of at least 40% would have been appropriate.

5. We agree that giving an incentive to criminals to inform on their accomplices or other criminals is greatly to be encouraged as a valuable aid to the suppression of crime. In all the circumstances of this case we think that a 50% discount should have been given. We therefore granted the application and, treating it as the hearing of the appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the sentence and substituted for it one of two and a half years' imprisonment.