Hong Kong Judgment

Court of Appeal

HKSAR v. X

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

No additional reduction of sentence was warranted because the defendant received payment under the police guideline for post‑arrest assistance concerning bookmaking; the payment was adequate under police practice and precedent establishes that paid assistance exchanged for a benefit does not justify further discount.

Court disposition

No additional reduction of sentence for informer assistance; prior one‑third plea reduction stands; anonymity preserved.

Orders

  • No further discount awarded for assistance beyond existing plea reduction
  • Defendant and legal representatives not to be identified in this judgment

02

Material facts

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

Unnamed Defendant

Applicant

Amounts and remedies

  • Payment to Defendant: HKD 3,000
  • Per Information Payment Guideline: HKD 500
  • Max Payment for Arrest Charge: HKD 2,000
  • Max Additional Information Payment: HKD 10,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal (sentencing) / Court of Appeal Judgment (reasons for Judgment)

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The defendant had provided information that led to a conviction and received only a modest payment; this assistance should attract mitigation beyond the one‑third plea reduction.
Respondent
Payments to informers are common and governed by a police guideline which the police regard as adequate; substantial payments reduce sympathy and where an informer has been paid no further discount should be given, particularly where assistance was post‑arrest and the informer would not testify.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Z v HKSAR [2007] 2 HKC 265 para 20

    Payments to police informers can be a mitigating factor but the court must consider all circumstances and the size of the payment; larger payments reduce the court's willingness to grant a discount.

  2. 02

    R v X [1987] NZLR 240 (per Bisson J; Somers J)

    Where an accused has struck a bargain with the police for payment or other consideration in return for assistance, no further sentencing discount is warranted.

  3. 03

    Court of Appeal reasons in this case (Tang VP)

    Post‑arrest assistance may be considered but does not automatically entitle the accused to additional mitigation beyond any bargain struck or payment received.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

No additional reduction of sentence was warranted because the defendant received payment under the police guideline for post‑arrest assistance concerning bookmaking; the payment was adequate under police practice and precedent establishes that paid assistance exchanged for a benefit does not justify further discount.

Obiter and limits

  • Payments to informers are a fact of life and necessary in society's fight against crime
  • The more substantial the payment or consideration, the less sympathetic the court should be to mitigation based on that assistance
  • For protection the defendant, counsel and solicitors will not be identified in the judgment

Court disposition

No additional reduction of sentence for informer assistance; prior one‑third plea reduction stands; anonymity preserved.

  • No further discount awarded for assistance beyond existing plea reduction
  • Defendant and legal representatives not to be identified in this judgment

Source and reliance status

Court of Appeal · 5 July 2007

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court of Appeal

Judgment· 5 July 2007

HKSAR v. X

bjbj

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL __________

BETWEEN

HKSAR macrobutton nomacro Respondent macrobutton nomacro Applicant ________ Before: Hon macrobutton nomacro Tang VP and Fung J in Court Date of Reasons for macrobutton nomacro Judgment : 5 July 2007 ________ macrobutton nomacro REASONS FOR macrobutton nomacro JUDGMENT __________ macrobutton nomacro Hon Tang VP (giving the macrobutton nomacro reasons for macrobutton nomacro judgment of the Court): The defendant was convicted on his own plea of, inter alia, one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug. He was given the usual one-third reduction for his plea. Whilst on bail, he was a paid police informer. His effort led to one conviction of bookmaking. The bookmaker was sentenced to a short term of imprisonment. The defendant was paid approximately $3,000 in accordance with a police guideline formula under which an informer would be paid $500: (a) For information leading to the arrest and charging of a person for engaging in bookmaking or assisting any person in bookmaking; (up to a maximum of $2,000) (b) Additional information money based on 1% of the proven turnover of the business, subject to this information being laid before the Courts. (up to a maximum of $10,000) It was accepted that out of the payment, the defendant had incurred some expenses. It was also accepted the defendant was not willing to testify in court. The defendant s counsel referred us to Z v HKSAR [2007] 2 HKC 265. There the Court of Final Appeal was concerned with pre-arrest assistance. Here we are not concerned with pre-arrest assistance. The assistance was post-arrest. However, what the Court of Final Appeal said about paid informer is relevant: (at page 273 F to H, para.

20) Secondly, the defendant may have received payment or other consideration for his assistance. It has to be recognised that payments to police informers are a fact of life and the use of informers is necessary in society s fight against crime. Although assistance for which payment or other consideration was given may be recognised as a mitigating factor, the court should carefully consider all the circumstances in deciding whether the assistance in the case in question deserves any reduction and if so, the amount of reduction. The more substantial the payment or consideration, the less sympathetic should the court be in this regard. Counsel submitted that the payment in this case could not be regarded as substantial. However, the amount must be considered in the context of the information supplied. Here, the information related to bookmaking on soccer matches carried out in a bar, and the amount was determined in accordance with a guideline formula. In response to our inquiry we were told that the police regard the payments under the guideline formula to be adequate. That being the case, we see no reason why any reduction of sentence should be given as a further reward for such information. In R v X [1987] NZLR 240, the defendant was convicted on a charge of manufacturing a prohibited drug to which he had pleaded guilty. After his arrest, he provided information to the

police: which enabled a person engaged in the manufacture of [a prohibited drug] to be arrested and convicted at page 246 per Bisson J In return he was allowed to keep his car. No further discount was given to him and Somers J explained why at page 244 line 30: He struck his own bargain with the police. He traded his help for the security of his car No consideration of fairness or justice suggests that he ought to be given any further allowance for his assistance. With respect, we agree. In the present case, we saw no reason why any further discount should be given and we had not done so when we dealt with the applicant s appeal on merit. For the protection of the defendant, he will not be identified in this judgment, nor counsel and solicitors involved. ( macrobutton nomacro Robert Tang ) Vice-President (B. Fung) Judge of the Court of First Instance

PAGE -

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T U V 1udk 1udk 1udk

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T U V (#p# "0 "0 "0 i$&`G @$_Rs setup Normal setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Hong Kong SAR Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Z v HKSAR [2007] 2 HKC 265

Case cited

R v X [1987] NZLR 240

Case cited

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.