Pang Kam-tong v. The Queen

CACC000392/1978

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

Coram: Huggins, J.A., Leonard and Li, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 31st October 1978.

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

JUDGMENT

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

Huggins, J. A. :

1. This Appellant was convicted by a jury on two charges, one of conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs and the other of trafficking in dangerous drugs. He was sentenced to six years' imprisonment on the first count and eight years' imprisonment consecutive on the second count. He originally appealed against convictions and sentences but subsequently abandoned the appeal against convictions.

2. The offences involved the largest quantity of drugs which at the material date had ever been seized by the authorities in Hong Kong - something in the region of 2 ½ tons of dangerous drugs. The majority of it was opium but there was also a substantial quantity of salts of morphine. The offences came to light when a junk was stopped in the harbour and found to be towing beneath the keel a very large quantity of drugs in something like forty sacks. One of the persons involved in that case subsequently made statements to the police, as a result of which a previous conspiracy to traffic came to light. That particular man who gave this information was a convicted prisoner - convicted in relation to the trafficking offence - who had been sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. The earlier offence was of a very similar nature. It is not necessary to go into details. The owner of the vessel which was towing the drugs on the second occasion was sentenced to eleven years' imprisonment for his part in that offence. Neither of those two men was charged in respect of the earlier offence. This Appellant was perhaps unfortunate in that he was charged with the two offences.

3. First, it is right to say that in our view it was not improper to pass consecutive sentences. These offences were separated by a period of twelve months and there is nothing wrong with consecutive sentences. We are, however, concerned at the overall total of fourteen years' imprisonment. The evidence upon which he was convicted consisted to a large extent of his own confessions, and it appears from those that in fact he received $3, 000 for his part on the first occasion. The amount that he was to have received in respect of the second we do not know, but we do know that in fact he received only $100 because the drugs themselves had been seized, and lost to those who were engaged in the venture. We think we are bound to accept these figures. We also know that the other persons involved in the affair, Kwok Kai (the witness who gave evidence to the police) received $35,000, and the owner of the junk received $40,000. It is fair to say, therefore, by comparing the remuneration which each was to get, that this Appellant was playing a comparatively minor role. Nevertheless we think the learned judge was justified when he commented that the part played by this Appellant was not simply that of a coolie: he did appear to have a somewhat more important part, for he was sent to Macau - it is said merely to ascertain whether the shipment was ready. Also, in relation to the other offence he was present during certain discussions and did not play an entirely listening part.

4. Clearly this Appellant has to go to prison for a long time. We have considered the matter very carefully in relation to the sentences passed on the others. We have borne in mind that he is receiving consecutive sentences and we think that a total sentence of nine years' imprisonment would be appropriate. We, therefore, allow this appeal and for the sentences passed by the learned judge we substitute sentences of four years and five years consecutive.

31st October 1978.

Representation:

Kotewall (D.L.A.) for Appellant.

Aiken for Crown/Respondent.