HKSAR v. LAU KWAI WAH

 DCCC858/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 858 OF 2009

 ----------------------

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to five charges of blackmail, contrary to section 23(1) and (3) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210. 

2.  On five separate occasions the defendant demanded money from five separate victims.  All five victims lived in Lung Kwu Tan, Tuen Mun.  Defendant demanded one-off payments and threatened damage and violence.  Only in Charge 3 where the victim called the police instead of the defendant is there no monetary demand.

3.  Briefly I will describe the facts of each charge.  There are many similarities.

4.  PW1 actually received a visit from the defendant on 1 June at about 6 pm.  The defendant threatened PW1 by saying, “Do you want your family to live peacefully?  You don’t want to decorate the house again, do you?”  The defendant demanded $25,000 and it was non-negotiable.  Defendant claimed that he would not disturb PW1’s family if the payment was made.  PW1 paid it. 

Charge 2

5.  For Charge 2, PW2 found a note in his letterbox on 15 June.  It requested him to call a telephone number and other words included “Night shift decorator.  Bear the consequences yourself.”  PW2 called that telephone number and spoke to the defendant.  The defendant said to him, “You don’t pay while living here.  Everyone who lives here has to pay.”  The victim PW2 replied, “If you want to receive money from me, ask Tuen Mun Big Brother to collect it.”  The defendant retorted with, “No need to ask Tuen Mun Big Brother to collect it.  There are many big brothers in Lung Kwu Tan to collect it from you.”  There was no actual amount demanded.

Charge 3

6.  PW4 also found a note in his letterbox.  The note was quite detailed.  It asked the recipient to call a telephone number.  “If no call was received”,  the note said, ”Help you to decorate at night.  Having bought a flat, also want to live here peacefully.”  It goes on to threaten that if the police was informed the recipient would have to bear the consequences.  Ended with, “Can’t sleep every night.  Help you to decorate every night.  Everything can be negotiated.”  PW3, knowing it was a demand for protection money, called the police without calling the telephone number. 

Charge 4

7.  Involved the 4th defendant who on the same day as Charge 3, 16 June, also received a note stuck to his gate.  He called the telephone number written on the note.  Defendant told him that other persons had paid $100,000.00 to $200,000.00 for decoration.  “You know what to do.”  The victim realised the defendant was demanding “tor dei”, protection fee from him, so offered to pay $10,000.  Defendant demanded $15,000.  He told PW4 he would have to pay more than $15,000 if his house was disturbed and he had to redecorate. 

Charge 5

8.  The last charge involved the fifth victim who was, in fact, an undercover police officer.  She called the defendant and pretended to be a resident.  He told her that if she wanted to live there peacefully she would have to pay him $15,000.00.  Similarly, he said if she did not pay he would decorate her flat at night.  They arranged to meet for the undercover officer to pay the defendant an agreed sum of $10,000.00.  The defendant was then arrested by PW5’s colleagues. 

9.  The defendant made a full admission of all five charges.  He admitted that a night shift decorator was a threat to damage property at night.  He told the police that he never intended to carry out any of his threats. 

10.  There are several factors that make this a serious case.  The amounts of money demanded - in particular Charges 1, 4 and 5 - are not insignificant. 

11.  Charge 2, the defendant insinuates triad connections.  The threats of violence and damage are clearly intended to cause fear in the victims.  He directly threatens PW1’s family when he asks if PW1 wants his family to live peacefully.  In his note to PW3 he writes, “Can’t sleep every night.  Help you to decorate every night.” 

12.  These threats to disturb at night are intended to maximise the fear.  Victims and their families sleep at night and therefore at their most vulnerable at night.  The fact he did not intend to carry out the threat does not make it any less serious or less frightening to the victims. 

13.  The defendant has pleaded guilty.  This is his best mitigation.  I have heard his background in mitigation put forward on his behalf. 

14.  The defendant is not a man of clear record.  In fact, he has two similar convictions for blackmail in 1988 and 1990.  I take into account his last similar offence was 19 years ago.  It has been explained the defendant has a gambling problem that has led to debts.  The defendant resorted to blackmail as he was desperate to find means to pay his loans.  Blackmail has been described as one of the most serious offences in the calendar of offences with deterrence as perhaps the most important part of the sentence coming just after the question of punishment.  I have looked at many similar related authorities including the authority of Cheung Wan-ing [2000] 3 HKC 762. 

15.  After considering this authority, factors that make these offences serious and the defendant’s mitigation I will take a starting point, an equal starting point of 3 years and 6 months for each offence.  The defendant is entitled to a discount of one-third for his plea of guilty.  This would reduce each sentence to 2 years and 4 months for each charge.  The defendant faces five charges.  I take into account the timing of each charge and the totality principle.  As a result for each charge 2, 3, 4 and 5, two months of the 2 years and 4 months will run consecutively to Charge 1 and the balance will be served concurrently.  Therefore, I add a total of 8 months to the 2 years and 4 months of Charge 1.

16.  The defendant for Charges 1 to 5 is sentenced to a total of 3 years' imprisonment.