Attorney General v. So Chee Kong Eddie
Read the full judgment text of CAAR 9/1992 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 8 June 1994 before Power, V.-P., Mortimer, J.A., Sears, J..
Criminal law – sentencing – review – corruption – offering advantage to public servant – conspiracy – concurrent sentences – distinct transactions – manifestly inadequate – totality principle – remorse – delay – health – comparison with co-defendant – Attorney General's application – sentence varied from 7 years to 9 years – one count ordered consecutive by 2 years – heinous offences striking at administration of justice – deterrent sentences – key figure in corrupt offers to subvert prosecutions – huge sums involved – respondent in his fifties – co-operation with ICAC – withdrawal of appeal against conviction – medical reports of high blood pressure and depressive reaction – two-year delay since sentencing – overall criminality considered – totality principle applied.
Legal issues: Whether concurrent sentences were wrong in principle for multiple distinct corrupt transactions
Outcome: Application for review granted; sentence varied.
Cited by 4 cases
|
CAAR000009/1992 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1992, No. 9 ________________
____________________ Coram: Hon. Power, V.-P., Mortimer, J.A. and Sears, J. Date of hearing: 8 June 1994 Date of judgment: 8 June 1994 ____________________ J U D G M E N T ____________________ Power, V.-P: 1. This is the judgment of the court. 2. The respondent was found guilty after trial before Saied J. and a jury of seven counts of offering an advantage to a public servant and one of conspiring to offer an advantage to a public servant. He was sentenced to seven years on each count and the sentences were ordered to be concurrent. The Attorney General now seeks to review those sentences on the ground that the ordering that they be concurrent was wrong in principle as each involved a separate and distinct transaction. It is submitted that while seven years was an appropriate sentence for one such offence, it was manifestly inadequate for eight. The trial judge was not faulted in his approach which took into account that the offences were of particular gravity, striking as they did, at the heart of the administration of justice and that they called for deterrent sentences. The Crown however argued that nothing urged in mitigation would warrant the imposition of an overall sentence of seven years. 3. We do not intend to again detail the circumstances surrounding these offences suffice to say that they took place over several years and that the respondent was a key figure in what were a number of corrupt offers, the purpose of which was, with the assistance of Warwick Reid, the then head of the Commercial Crime Bureau, to subvert and weaken prosecutions launched or contemplated against the persons represented by the respondent. Huge sums of corrupt money were involved. They were heinous offences which called for substantial deterrent sentences. 4. Mr. Keane, Q.C., with him Mr. Laurence Law, who appears for the respondent, asked that the application be refused. He urges upon us that the applicant is now truly remorseful. We note that he has withdrawn his application to appeal against conviction, that he has co-operated with the Independent Commission Against Corruption and that he now throws himself without reservation as to his criminality upon the mercy of this court. 5. Mr. Keane points to the age of the respondent, asks us to bear in mind the grave effect of imprisonment upon a person in his fifties. He asks us also to bear in mind what he has lost, not only his reputation, his livelihood but in short his whole life's achievement. Mr. Keane also has handed us medical reports today which indicate that the applicant is suffering from high blood pressure and what the doctor described as a depressive reaction to his situation. That doctor went on to say: "It is probable that Mr. Soh's mental health would deteriorate if his sentence is extended." That regrettably may be so. 6. Mr. Keane asks us to look at the sentence that was imposed upon Warwick Reid, bearing in mind the overall criminality of the respondent and of Reid and he suggests that when such a comparison is made the sentence of seven years imposed on the respondent as against that of eight years imposed upon Reid they will be seemed to be a proper one. We find no real assistance from the making of such a comparison. 7. Mr. Keane also points to the fact that there has been two years delay since the applicant was sentenced on 3rd June 1992. The respondent has had this application for review and the possibility of an increase of sentence hanging over him for that period. In part this delay was the fault of the respondent himself but we bear in mind that the possibility of an increase in sentence must, for him, have been a source of acute anxiety. 8. The respondent has, it is true, been ruined and shamed by his convictions. He has at the eleventh hour demonstrated a degree of remorse and co-operation but coming as it did after trial, after conviction and after sentence little weight can be given to it. Regrettable as it is, it would not, we are satisfied, be proper for us to give weight to possible deterioration in his health. It is a matter for the Prison Authorities to see that he receives proper medical attention. 9. The trial judge was, for the reasons urged by the Crown, wrong to make the sentences concurrent. His overall sentence was manifestly inadequate and was wrong in principle. We must, therefore, assess the proper overall sentence bearing in mind the totality principle. We are satisfied that the sentence which should have been imposed by the trial judge would have been one of ten years. We bear in mind, however, the matters to which we have referred above and are satisfied that we should impose an overall sentence of nine years. 10. The sentence on the second count will to the extent of two years be ordered to be consecutive to the other concurrent sentences making an overall sentence of nine years. 11. The application for review is granted and the sentence is varied accordingly.
Representation: Mr. Adrian Huggins, Q.C. and Mr. Alfred Chan (A.G.) for the Appellant. Mr. D. Keane, Q.C. & Mr. Laurence Law (Messrs.Massie & Pickavant) for the Respondent. |