Siu Kuk Ngor and Another v. The Queen

CACC000176/1974

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 176 OF 1974

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

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

Coram: Huggins & McMullin, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 30th April, 1974.

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

JUDGMENT

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

Huggis, J.:

1. These two Appellants pleaded Guilty to conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The first Appellant is the wife of a restaurateur and because of her medical history he has been accustomed to having his wife at his restaurant during the day. The second Appellant has acted as her companion, she coming from the same village in China. The first Appellant had become acquainted with a man called Li who carried out an abortion on a young woman. The young woman had apparently been introduced to Li by one, Wong. The police having become aware of Wong's connection with the abortion, another friend of Li was brought in to approach the young woman with a view to persuading her not to identify Wong at an identification parade The friend first approached the first Appellant and the first Appellant together with the second Appellant accompanied the friend and spoke with the young woman. They persuaded her not to identify Wong and on the following day the two Appellants gave her money. On another occasion these two Appellants were present in Court when the young woman was asked to identify Wong and proceeded to give false testinony. The connection originally between Li and the first Appellant was that Li was someone who commonly went to the restaurant and had come to be acquainted with the first Appellant's medical history. He took what I will call a professional interest in her and gave her advice. The position of the second Appellant in the whole of this affair might aptly be described as her being the shadow of the first Appellant. The learned judge, with his accustomed thoroughness, looked at many decided cases in the United Kingdom and he very properly decided that this was a serious offence. He therefore passed sentences of 21 months' imprisonment upon each Appellant.

2. Upon this appeal Mr. Yu has emphasised that he has never suggested that this was other than a serious offence - and rightly so. This Court could never countenance any suggestion that an attempt to pervert the course of justice was anything but an extremely serious offence. It matters not whether the proceedings interfered with relate to a serious offence or not. In this case it was a serious offence. It has been suggested that these cases are not frequent in Hong Kong. We would not go along with that suggestion. We have reason to believe that they are all too frequent in Hong Kong, although it may well be that they are seldom prosecuted, and that in itself is a good reason for regarding cases which are brought before the Court as extremely serious. Looking at the offence itself we see no reason at all to interfere with the sentences passed, but the submission which is made is that the personal circumstances in this case have not been given sufficient attention by the learned judge. There was before the learned judge a report from the Psychiatric Unit at Kowloon Hospital and we have had the benefit of a more up-to-date report. We are in the difficulty that there is no very clear evidence as to the part that these Appellants played in the offence, but it would appear that their part was minor. The first Appellant has a very long history of mental illness and there is a family history of mental illness. The medical report suggests that there may well be ill effects from a long period of detention. I do not propose to say any more than that about the medical evidence. We have, after most anxious consideration, come to the conclusion that the learned judge did not give the weight which the personal circumstances of this particular Appellant justify.

3. As to the second Appellant we, as I have said, think that she was the mere shadow of the first Appellant and that her part was extremely small - but for her position as companion she would never have been involved in this at all - and she is a person, we are told, of little aducation.

4. We think that a sentence of imprisonment was appropriate in view of the over all seriousness of the offence and, but for the matter to which we have referred, we would not have interfered at all. The Appellants have been in custody since 4th March and we think that the appropriate course is that the sentences of 21 months' imprisonment should stand but that they should be suspended. This hearing is treated as the hearing of the appeal. We allow the appeals and make an order accordingly.

30th April, 1974.

Representation: