HKSAR v. PANG SHEK FAI

DCCC 926/2024

[2025] HKDC 1909

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 926 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  Mr Pang pleaded guilty before me to two charges on a Charge Sheet as follows.

2.  Charge 1 is Conspiracy to commit criminal damage, contrary to section 60(1), 63(2), 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.  Particulars are that he, on or about 16 December 2023, in Hong Kong, conspired with other person(s)  unknown, without lawful excuse, to damage building part(s)  inside the premises of Mee Cheong Building, Nos 141-145 Portland Street, Mong Kok, Kowloon, being property belonging to another, intending to damage such property or being reckless as to whether such property would be damaged.

3.  Charge 2 is Failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause, contrary to section 9L(1)  and (3)  of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221.  Particulars are that he, on 13 August 2024, in Hong Kong, being a person admitted to bail, without reasonable cause, failed to surrender to custody as was appointed by a court.

Facts admitted by Mr Pang

Charge 1

4.  In December 2023, Mee Cheong Building in Portland Street, Mong Kok was undergoing renovation work to be performed by a construction company founded by PW8 and others.

5.  On 13 December 2023, PW8 received a call from a male person calling himself Jimmy and demanding protection money of $100,000 in relation to the renovation work.  Subsequent messages repeated the demand.  PW8 ignored them.

6.  On 16 December 2023, red paint was splashed at various building parts of Mee Cheong Building from 3/F to 8/F.  Residents of Mee Cheong Building could smell strong scent of thinner afterwards.  On 17 December 2023, green paint was splashed in the office of the construction company.

7.  Repair of the building parts cost about $6,000 to the company.

8.  CCTV installed at or near Mee Cheong Building captured images of Mr Pang’s contact with other person(s)  prior to and after the incident of splashing of red paint between 0223 and 0254 hours on 16 December 2023.

9.  Upon investigation, Mr Pang was arrested.  Mr Pang admitted he was recruited by one “Kam Mo” to act as a lookout for a reward of $500 when the latter splashed red paint at Mee Cheong Building.  Mr Pang claimed he did not know the purpose of the splashing nor was he involved in the extortion of PW8. Mr Pang also claimed he was not involved in the incident relating to PW8’s office.

10.  Mr Pang now admits by agreeing to be such a lookout, he conspired with other person(s)  unknown without lawful excuse to damage the said building part(s).

Charge 2

11.  In relation to this case, when his bail was extended by the court on 23 July 2024, one of the conditions was that Mr Pang was to appear in the District Court for mention on 13 August 2024.  On the latter date, Mr Pang failed to appear.  A warrant of arrest was issued by the District Judge against Mr Pang.

12.  On 6 March 2025, during a police raid on a divan in Shanghai Street, Mr Pang was found thereat.  Subsequently, the arrest warrant was executed.  Under caution, Mr Pang claimed that he had forgotten to attend court.

Criminal record

13.  Mr Pang has 10 previous convictions none similar.

Antecedents

14.  Mr Pang is aged 50 (48 at the time of the conspiracy offence), educated to middle school level, unemployed.  Mr Pang is divorced and lived alone in private housing in Nathan Road.

Mitigation

15.  Mr Roy Tse of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Pang.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

16.  Mr Pang’s last job before arrest was as a part-time cook.

17.  Mr Pang committed the offence subject of Charge 1 due to money problem. His role was as a lookout only.  He did not know the purpose of the paint-splashing.  The repair cost was only $6,000, not a huge sum.  After arrest, he cooperated with the police and made confessions.

18.  The strongest mitigation is the pleas of guilty.  He promises not to re-offend.

19.  Mr Pang’s past records are mainly gambling convictions.

20.  For Charge 1, the maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.  There is no sentencing tariff.

21.  In HKSAR v Leung Dak Cheong (transliteration)  & Anor CACC 28/2010, a case of conspiracy to commit criminal damage with similar facts but with the additional feature that the red paint also landed on the eyes of a cook, on appeal the sentence after trial was reduced from 4 years’ to 3 years’ imprisonment.

22.  In R v Lam Sek Lun CACC 474/1987, a case of criminal damage with similar facts, on appeal the sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment after trial was not disturbed.

23.  Mr Tse also cited a District Court sentencing case of HKSAR v Cheng Fai Kin & Anor DCCC 187/2013 on charges of criminal damage for reference purpose only.

24.  A starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment was suggested for Charge 1.

25.  Relating to Charge 2, Mr Tse referred to HKSAR v Lo Kam Fai [2016] 2 HKLRD 308.  Mr Tse emphasized that Mr Pang absconded at an early stage during transfer of the case to the District Court when no date of a substantive hearing had yet been fixed.  Furthermore, Mr Pang’s bail money of $5,000 has been estreated.  It was submitted that Mr Pang has only been missing for no more than 7 months.  A starting point of 4 months’ imprisonment was suggested for Charge 2.

26.  Despite the fact that Lo Kam Fai approved a reduced sentencing discount in the range of 20 to 25% (instead of the usual 1/3)  for a late plea to the substantive charge (ie Charge 1 in the case before me), Mr Tse urged the court to nonetheless give Mr Pang the customary 1/3 sentencing discount in light of the factors enumerated in the foregoing paragraph.

27.  Mr Tse reminded the court to apply the totality principle when combining the sentences of Charges 1 and 2.

Sentence

28.  I bear in mind that Mr Pang has been charged with a conspiracy rather than a substantive offence of criminal damage.  I bear in mind in Mr Pang’s favour that the particulars of the conspiracy relate only to the damage to the building part(s)  of Mee Cheong Building.  I bear in mind the limited role of Mr Pang in the conspiracy.

29.  Bearing all these things in mind, I adjudge it to be appropriate to adopt a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment for Charge 1.

30.  For Charge 2, the missing period of almost 7 months is not short and it was only due to a coincidence that Mr Pang was re-arrested.  I adjudge a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment to be appropriate here.

31.  Mr Pang pleaded guilty to Charge 1 late.  Fortunately, not much inconvenience was caused to the administration of justice.  I will give him 25% sentencing discount for his late plea.

32.  Mr Pang pleaded guilty to Charge 2 in good time.  He will get his usual 1/3 sentencing discount.

33.  There are no other mitigating factors of weight to justify another sentence reduction.

34.  I will apply the totality principle before reaching the final sentence for Mr Pang.

(Mr Pang, please stand)

35.  For Charge 1, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.

36.  For Charge 2, the sentence is 4 months’ imprisonment.

37.  I order 2 months of the sentence on Charge 2 to run consecutively to the sentence on Charge 1.  The aggregate sentence is therefore 20 months’ imprisonment.