(1) Chan Man-chiu @ Sha Chan Chiu and Others v. The Queen

CACC000517/1977

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & Pickering, JJ.A.

Date of Judgment: 1st November, 1977.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The first appellant pleaded guilty to the offence of conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs and was sentenced to eighteen years' imprisonment. The second and fourth appellants were found guilty of the like offence and were each sentenced to eleven years' imprisonment. And the third and fifth appellants were found guilty of the like offence and were each sentenced to thirteen years' imprisonment. All the appellants appeal against their sentences.

2. The appellants with five other persons were jointly charged with the offence for which they were convicted after a trial lasting some thirty seven days. The other five defendants were acquitted. The appellants were members of a syndicate which packaged and sold dangerous drugs in a particular area in Kowloon. The first appellant was the head of the syndicate but this is not to say that there were not other persons above him who were of more importance in the business of the production and distribution of dangerous drugs. The second appellant could best be described as the accountant of the syndicate. The third appellant was engaged in the packing and in the distribution of the dangerous drugs. The fourth appellant was the general handyman and the bodyguard of the first appellant. He also helped to procure packing materials and one of his duties was to clear up after there had been a packing session. The fifth appellant was also active in distributing the drugs. The syndicate had a daily turnover of some $10,000 to $14,000 per day. They received supplies from a wholesaler which they packed in polythene bags and small phials. And then sold the packets and phials retail. The syndicate was in existence from January to August 1976 and approximately 180 pounds of heroin passed through it hands during that time.

3. Mr. Niamatullah, who appeared for all the appellants, raised three points in favour of the first appellant. One, he pleaded guilty; two, he had given valuable information to the authorities which has resulted in certain persons being arrested for drug offences of a serious nature; and three, he has continued to give valuable information since his conviction. He is also to be a prosecution witness in a case involving other persons, a case brought under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

4. Mr. Niamatullah produced a list of recent cases of a similar nature showing the sentences passed in each case. He pointed out that the sentences passed in the present case were in excess of the normal tariff for such cases. It was conceded by the Crown that the first appellant had supplied important information to the Crown concerning the supply of drugs by the wholesalers to the syndicate in this case. Also, that all the appellants had been co-operative with the police and had supplied information which was of considerable value. We think that there is merit in these points and we think that the trial judge did not give sufficient weight to them when passing sentence. There is also the fact that some of the information supplied by the appellants has only been supplied since their conviction in May of this year. This, of course, was not before the judge when he sentenced the appellants.

5. We therefore think that justice will best be done if the appeals against the sentences of the appellants are allowed to the extent that the period of imprisonment of the first appellant is reduced to eleven years' imprisonment, of the second appellant to seven years, of the third appellant to eight years, of the fourth appellant to seven years, and of the fifth appellant to eight years. And we order accordingly.

Representation:

A.M. Niamatullah (Sousae & Hoosen) for 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th appellants

A.M. Niamatullah (D.L.A.) for 4th appellant

Hodge for crown