|
DCCC816/2011
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 816 OF 2011
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
Chik Chun-bon |
|
| ---------------------- |
| Date: |
9 September 2011 at 11.44 am |
| Present: |
Ms Margaret Lau, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Ms Chan So-yuen, Zoe, of Messrs Fung & Fung, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant |
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of blackmail. The particulars of the offence are that on 9 June at Trafalgar Gardens in the Hung Shui Kiu in the New Territories, he made a demand for $100,000 with menaces.
2. The facts admitted by the defendant state that in March 2011, an outer wall renovation project was being carried out at these premises in Trafalgar Gardens in Yuen Long. In the early afternoon on 9 June, the foreman of the renovation project, a security guard and the chairman of the owners’ corporation were having a discussion in the security booth which is at the entrance of the estate. They were approached by five men, including the defendant. The defendant asked who was the in charge.
3. Upon the defendant’s request, the foreman of the project walked to the pavement outside the main gate, and after reconfirming that he was the person in charge, the defendant said that he was a “Tor Dei” of “Tin Sum” and asked him to show respect in order to carry out the construction work. The foreman indicated that he was in no position to make a decision of that kind, and the defendant wrote down his mobile phone number on an envelope and gave it to the foreman, and the defendant left with threat that if he did not call, the construction work would not be carried out the following day.
4. The matter was reported to the police, and under police instructions, the foreman made a phone call to the defendant, and the defendant asked for $100,000 as protection money. The foreman indicated that he needed to consult his company, and the defendant then told him he would settle the matter for $70,000 provided $20,000 was paid that day. A meeting was arranged which the police were going to be in attendance, but the defendant failed to show up. CCTV footage revealed the identity of the defendant who was then arrested.
5. Under caution, the defendant said he had gone there to inspect the renovation work and to see if there was any work for him to do.
6. The defendant has appeared before the court on five previous occasions in respect of three offences. His last appearance was in 2002 for robbery when he was sentenced to 4 years 8 months’ imprisonment. And to the defendant’s credit, he has stayed out of trouble since then.
7. I am told in mitigation that he comes from a broken family and he was brought up by his father. I am told he has a girlfriend by whom he has a two-year-old daughter, but they are no longer living together. I was told that the offence was committed because of the financial pressures on the defendant.
8. As offences of blackmail go, this is at the lower end of the scale. I propose to take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment and reduce that by one-third to reflect the guilty plea of the defendant. The defendant will go to prison for 2 years.
|