R v Ong [2000] EWCA Crim 92

R v Ong [2000] EWCA Crim 92; [2001] 1 Cr App R (S) 117

Conspiracy to cause a public nuisance, a football betting scheme and an application for leave to appeal against sentence.

Facts

Chee Kew Ong and others planned to interfere with a Premier Division football match between Charlton Athletic and Liverpool. Electrical devices would allow the floodlights to be switched off remotely, causing the match to be abandoned.

The evidence was that certain Far Eastern bookmakers treated the score at abandonment as the result. The plan was therefore to place substantial bets on a team and extinguish the lights when that team was ahead. The intended winnings depended on manipulating the recorded result, rather than betting simply that the lights would fail.

Ong and another defendant, Lim, were the organisers in England, acting for a betting syndicate abroad. They recruited a security official, Firth, who was promised £20,000 for giving Lim, an electrical engineer, access to the control room. Another participant, Liu, helped transport the conspirators. Police intervened about 72 hours before the match, and the plan was never carried out.

Ong pleaded guilty to conspiracy to cause a public nuisance and received four years’ imprisonment. A separate conspiracy-to-defraud count was left on the file. After a single judge refused leave to appeal against sentence, Ong renewed his application before the full Court of Appeal.

Issues

Ong argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive. In particular, he challenged the sentencing judge’s reliance on the intended betting fraud when he had been sentenced for conspiracy to cause a public nuisance. He also relied on the assessment of a small risk to public safety and the shorter, 30-month sentence imposed on Liu.

Decision and reasoning

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal on 2 October 2000. The four-year sentence remained in place.

The purpose of the nuisance was relevant

The court rejected the suggestion that the betting scheme had to be disregarded because the fraud count had not been pursued. A sentencing court could consider the purpose and motive of the public nuisance. The intended financial gain was substantial, and the operation was organised, technical and involved corrupting a security official.

The judge had also been entitled to take account of the consequences of an abandoned match: interruption of the spectators’ entertainment and substantial financial losses to the club and other organisations, including broadcasting and restaging costs. The Court of Appeal found no basis for rejecting his assessment that those losses would have been in six figures.

Safety, mitigation and the different sentences

The sentencing judge had expressly considered the risk to public safety. The appeal court regarded his assessment of a small risk as favourable to the defendants, given the possibility of anger and violence among spectators if the match were abruptly abandoned. Ong’s good character had also been taken into account.

Liu’s shorter sentence did not establish unjustified disparity. His precise role was uncertain, and the evidence did not justify treating him as a principal organiser. Ong and Lim occupied a different position. The court considered it proper to discourage interference with an important sporting fixture through severe sentences and saw no prospect of establishing that Ong’s sentence was manifestly excessive.

What the court decided

This was a sentencing application following a guilty plea. The court’s task was to assess the proposed challenge to the sentence, rather than decide a contested appeal about whether Ong had committed the offence. Its reasons emphasise the scheme’s commercial purpose, organisation and likely consequences, together with the different roles of the participants.

Source: Full Court of Appeal judgment.