Snitch-cum-conman has sentence reduced
A convicted conman who helped police capture a group of armed illegal immigrants had his sentence reduced in return, despite the help being given before the crimes for which he was jailed.
The Court of Final Appeal yesterday ruled that when considering the appropriate sentence for an offender, judges could take into account assistance rendered to police before the suspect's arrest.
In clarifying the law, the city's highest court acknowledged the vital role informants play in law enforcement and brought Hong Kong into line with the thinking of several other countries, including New Zealand and Australia.
'The use of the informer is a powerful weapon in the hands of the law-enforcement agencies,' Chief Justice Andrew Li Kwok-nang said. 'Criminals should be encouraged to inform on other criminals.
'Honour among thieves should be discouraged. Indeed, dishonour and betrayal among thieves should be encouraged.'
Assistance given to police after arrest has long been recognised as a mitigating factor at the time of sentencing. But the issue of what value, if any, to award information offered before the arrest has seen conflicting rulings in previous cases.
In the case before the court, the appellant - referred to only as Z - was convicted in November 2004 of five fraud and four theft charges. He was sentenced to 51/2 years in jail.
He appealed against the length of the sentence after learning of the successful conviction of two illegal immigrants who had planned to commit armed robberies in Hong Kong. He had led police to them five months before committing the crimes for which he was jailed.
The court noted that Z, who is in his 40s, had a 'most appalling record of dishonesty'. He had spent more than a decade in prison and had faced court seven times in relation to 24 crimes.
But his record was no reason to ignore his valuable assistance to police, which had helped avoid a series of armed robberies.
The court saw fit to reduce the sentence to one year.
The judges observed there were two key factors that needed to be evaluated by the sentencing judge: the nature and type of the assistance, and what the possible consequences for the offender could be. It was also important to consider what the offender had received in return for the assistance.
The court also suggested judges be aware of the prospect of a criminal offering information as a kind of insurance against future crimes.
