R. v. SZETO TSZ KWONG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 798
(Criminal)

----------------------------

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Mayo, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant seeks leave out of time to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him for trafficking in dangerous drugs. The amount of dangerous drugs was very substantial. On the first count the amount was 10,554.93 grams of a mixture containing 10,413.63 grams of salts of esters of morphine. On the second count it was 107.49 grams of a mixture containing 94.23 grams of salts of esters of morphine.

2. The trial judge Deputy Judge Beeson adopted as a starting point 25 years' imprisonment. She gave the applicant one third credit for his plea and a further eight months for the assistance he had given to the authorities concerning one of his associates Mr Tam. The net result was 16 years' imprisonment.

3. Notwithstanding this assistance his associate had not been brought to justice at the time when Beeson DJ passed sentence. However since then Mr Tam has been brought to trial and the applicant gave evidence which was of importance in securing Mr Tam's conviction. This assistance was referred to in a letter Bewley J the trial judge in Mr Tam's case addressed to the Court of Appeal dated 22 February 1996.

4. The applicant's application for leave is lodged out of time. It will however be appreciated from the above that there is a good explanation for this. We are prepared to consider the application.

5. It can be said that the applicant has brought himself within the category of what is known as being a supergrass. Such persons amongst other things place himself and their families at risk of revenge attacks. Indeed in the present case the applicant is presently detained at Siu Lam.

6. Mr Tam was a major figure and operator in dangerous drugs and his conviction is a matter of great importance.

7. Discounts of up to 2/3 have been allowed in such situations. Clearly the applicant should be given a further substantial discount. In all the circumstances we consider that a further 7 years should be taken off the sentence which was imposed. The application is allowed, treating it as the appeal a sentence of 9 years' imprisonment is substituted for the present sentence of 16 years.