HKSAR v. YEUNG TSZ WING

CACC 33/2024, [2026] HKCA 1081

On appeal from [2024] HKDC 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 33 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NOS 706 OF 2021 AND 417 OF 2022 (CONSOLIDATED))

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

________________________

1.  There were originally nine defendants. The applicant was D7. They faced a number of charges, some jointly and some solely, principally of theft, blackmail and false imprisonment. Two defendants’ trial had been severed. Five others had pleaded guilty. The applicant and D8 were the only two left. They faced trial before His Honour Judge J. Lam (the “judge”). D5 and D9 gave evidence in the trial. In the end, the applicant was convicted of Charges 2 (blackmail ‒ victims X and Y), 3 (theft – victim X), 4 (false imprisonment – victim X) and 5 (blackmail – victim A, being X’s mother). She was sentenced to 54 months’ imprisonment. This is her application for leave to appeal against conviction.

2.  The principal victim named in the charges was X. He was at the time a 22-year-old man. He had dated the applicant for several years. Soon after the end of their relationship, X dated Y. The applicant herself had a new boyfriend, being D8. It was the prosecution case that upon the acrimonious end of her relationship with X, triggered by discontentment over X’s new romantic relationship, and out of vengeance and financial gain, the applicant with D8 (and others) committed the offences.

3.  X was the main witness. He gave evidence. The judge had doubts as to “whether X is entirely credible”, and “would only give weight to such testimony of his where there is reliable evidence to support what he says”.

4.  There is no direct evidence against the applicant. That remained so despite the evidence of D5 and D9. The main evidence came from certain chats between the applicant and D8 (the “Chats” and “Chat Records”). They were extracted from the phones seized from them. It is fair to say that there was no direct link between those Chats and the charged joint enterprise.

5.  The trial was conducted in English. The Chats were originally carried out in Chinese. They were translated into English and certified. One particular set of the Chats took place on 16 September 2020, and ran as follows: 

Time	Sender	Content (Original Chinese)	Content (Certified translation)
17:39:23	D8	btw相相要唔要Del	btw do (you) want to have the pics Del (leted)?
17:40:39	Applicant	咩相	What pics(?)
17:40:58	Applicant	條女？	(Of) the chick?
17:41:11	Applicant	成部機dum	Discard the whole device.
17:41:42	Applicant	ex啲相好心唔好keep有冇尊重過我	Please don’t keep those pics of (your) ex. Do (you) have the slightest respect for me(?) (the “Disputed Message”)
17:45:20	D8	相簿	Photo album.
17:45:24	D8	yours	yours
17:47:52	Applicant	清好了	Cleared.

6.  Referring to the Disputed Message, the judge at footnote 1 of his Reasons for Verdict stated that:

The original text of P6-M7/5 is “ex啲相好心唔好keep有冇尊重過我”. D7 was talking about her ‘ex’ so the translation should not have “(your)” there.

7.  The judge did not request the interpreter who did the certification to attend and be questioned. No submission had been requested from the parties on the same.

8.  The judge considered the Disputed Message as understood by him and the Chat Records. He drew principally therefrom a number of irresistible inferences against the applicant, to the effect that she was in joint enterprise with D8 in the plot against X and his family.  

9.  Ms Priscilia Lam SC appearing for the applicant advanced 3 grounds of appeal. Ground 1 avers that the judge erred in departing from the certified translation of the Disputed Message without any legal or evidential basis which resulted in an unfair trial. Ground 2 avers that the judge wrongly drew adverse inferences against the applicant based on the equivocal statements made in the Chat Records. Ground 3 avers that given the lack of reliable and credible evidence against the applicant, there is a lurking doubt as to the safety of her convictions.

10.  The evidence shows quite clearly that there was a blackmailing and even ransom-demanding plot against X and his family. The question remains whether the applicant was part of that plot and joint enterprise. There is no direct evidence on that. Inferences, adverse to the applicant, were drawn principally from the Chat Records. Ms Irene Poon on behalf of the respondent has helpfully pointed to various other matters which she says supported the adverse inferences which the judge drew. There may be such matters, but whether they are sufficient, when considered and taken in totality with the Chat Records properly read and interpreted, and with the time gaps between the relevant Chats appreciated, requires careful analysis.

11.  On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the 3 grounds are reasonably arguable. I grant the applicant leave to appeal against conviction on those grounds.