HKSAR v. CHAN KWOK HUNG AND ANOTHER

DCCC788/2008

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 788 OF 2008

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  Both defendants have today been convicted of one count of blackmail, which is the 4th charge.  As well, D1 has been convicted on one count of blackmail and one count of claiming to be a member of a triad society, the 1st and 2nd charges.  They did not plead guilty before me, but were found guilty after a trial.  Therefore, they cannot get any credit with respect to sentence a plea of guilty would have given them. 

2.  The facts as found are fresh in everyone’s mind and there is no need to repeat them in detail here.  Basically, PW1 was the operator of a taxi company and in the early hours of 13 July 2008, had received calls from the 1st defendant demanding payment of protection money of $3,000 per month.  D1 had further said he was of 14, a triad society.  PW1 was told to deposit the money into a designated account, and he in fact did so, depositing, or arranging for the deposit, of some $600.  D1 had threatened him with damage and trouble to his taxi company if he did not do so.  

3.  With respect to the 4th count, both D1 and D2 had attended the taxi company of PW1 on 16 July 2008 and demanded money.  In the course of demand, D1 had taken out a knife-like object which was wrapped in a cloth with the handle showing and accused, further, PW1 of harassing a young girl they had with them.  They threatened to chop off his hand, which D1 had valued at $90,000. 

4.  Both D1 and D2 had further threatened PW1 with respect to the protection money of $3,000 per month.  As well, D2 had punched PW1 a few times and PW1 was obviously very scared, as he said in the witness box, and I believe him.  Fortunately, because of a prior arrangement PW1 was able to contact police and police came.

5.  The criminal record of D1 and D2 have been produced, and it was agreed by them.  D1 has 15 sets of previous matters and D2 has 8 such sets.  I do note that none of these are for matters of a similar nature.  Mitigation followed, in which I am told D2 did not admit to being a member of a triad society as shown in his antecedent form, but he had told the authorities that his brother - since deceased - was such a member, and that factor did not take any part in my deliberation on sentence and nothing adverse to D2 will flow from that. 

6.  Further, a case of HKSAR v Wong Fu Wa and Another (1999) 1 HK 363 was proffered to me.  There, on appeal from a matter of blackmail, a starting point of 4 years was arrived at.  That case is not exactly the same sort of matter as exists here.  In that case, there was a massive force, 10 or 15 brothers present, which was demonstrated initially.  Here, with respect to the 4th charge against D1 and D2, there was only the two of them present, but of course, in the present case a knife-like object was shown and threats were made it would be used.

7.  I will deal firstly with the 4th charge.  I regard it as a very serious matter indeed.  There was a serious threat made to PW1 about losing his hand, and to reinforce that, a knife-like object was produced.  PW1 was very scared.  As well as the utterances made, PW1 was hit by D2.  Here was a typical extortion exercise.  There must be a deterrent sentence to show that this type of activity will not be tolerated. 

8.  As well, there was an unwarranted demand for $90,000, not an insignificant sum.  I am of the view that taking everything into account here, a starting point of 4 years is the appropriate one.  There is nothing put to me that would cause me to reduce that in any way, and accordingly, on the 4th charge, each of the defendants are convicted and sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment. 

9.  As well, of course, the 1st and 2nd charges are serious against D1.  There are clearly triad overtures in the demands made.  It is for the courts to protect owners of businesses from such threats.  There was the threat of violence used by D1 in his conversations with PW1 on the phone.  As well, he claimed to be a member of a triad society when asking for protection money.  This cannot be condoned. 

10.  With respect to the 1st charge for D1, I take a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment.  Again, there is nothing put to me that would cause me to reduce that and he will be convicted and sentenced accordingly.  With respect to the 2nd charge, I take a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment.  Again, nothing put to me that would cause me to reduce that, and he will be convicted and sentenced accordingly.  I will make those two sentences on the 1st and 2nd matter concurrent with each other.

11.  I next come to the element of totality with respect to D1.  Taking that into account, what I propose to do is this; 9 months of the sentences on charges 1 and 2 will be concurrent with and 9 months’ imprisonment will be consecutive to the 4 years’ imprisonment I imposed on him in respect of the 4th matter.  Therefore, the total head sentence for D1 becomes 4 years and 9 months' imprisonment.