CACC / 2007

S’s words:-

This case attracts my attention due to the fact that the judgment has no case number and the name of the defendant was concealed. Such information is covered for the protection of the defendant.

For paid police informer, one should not expect that he/she would get more than 1/3 reduction for his/her guilty plea.

---

CACC / 2007

Date of Reasons for Judgment: 5 July 2007

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.

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.”

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.