HKSAR v. LIU HOI WAN

CACC 478/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 478 OF 1999

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 22/1999)

__________________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Hon Mayo VP (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant was convicted after a trial before V Bokhary J and a jury of forcible detention of a person with intent to procure a ransom for her liberation contrary to s 42 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212. He was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment and seeks leave to appeal against his sentence.

2. The applicant was a member of a group of men. The victim was an illegal immigrant who together with four other women were brought into Hong Kong by a snake-head. Immediately after their arrival in Hong Kong they boarded a taxi. The taxi was stopped by the group of men of which the applicant was a member. The women were taken first to a room in a restaurant and thereafter to a stone hut in the vicinity. The victim referred to in the charge, one of these ladies, was asked what relatives she had in Hong Kong. She first gave particulars of her uncle and his telephone number. A telephone call was made to the uncle by one of the members of the group. A demand was made for $10,000 to secure her release. A threat was made that if the payment was not forthcoming the victim would be sold into prostitution. The uncle said he was unable to raise that kind of money. An approach was then made to a cousin of the victim. He said that he would need time to raise the money. However he made a report to the police and as a result of good police work the member of the group who was going to effect the delivery up of the victim for the ransom money was arrested by the police. Shortly after this police officers attended at the stone hut where the applicant had been guarding the other ladies. He was found by the police shortly afterwards in a bush. It appeared that he had sustained injuries as a consequence of jumping from the building.

3. In his written grounds of appeal the applicant refers to his remorse and claims that his role in the whole affair was a minor one. Indeed he claimed that he had been a most unwilling participant in the crime. He had only agreed to do so at the insistence of the main instigator to whom he owed money.

4. While the sentence which was imposed was at the upper end of the scale of appropriate sentences it has to be said that this offence was a serious one. It cannot in any way be said that the sentence of 8 years' imprisonment was either wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. The application is accordingly dismissed.