HKSAR v. YAU SHUI TIN AND ANOTHER

DCCC557/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 557 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Both defendants have pleaded guilty to Charge 2 which is a charge of criminal intimidation, contrary to section 24(a)(i) and 27 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200.

2.  The particulars of that offence are that on 15 May this year, both defendants threatened a victim with injury to her property with intent to alarm her.

3.  The facts are ones quite commonly seen.  The victim of this charge is a housewife who went to Macau to gamble and was there for five days.  She gambled and lost HK$10,000.  She was obviously easy prey and ultimately was offered and borrowed a total of $80,000 to continue to gamble.  At first, she was offered $30,000 and this offer came at about 6.30 in the morning which shows the extent of her gambling problem.  When she had lost that, on the same day she borrowed another $50,000.  Obviously, to borrow this amount of money, she had to give all her contact details as well as those of her family members.  She lost the entire sum.

4.  As is usual, she was then escorted to the ferry pier in Macau to catch a ferry back to Hong Kong.  She was eventually handed to the 1st defendant who was then joined by the 2nd defendant.  Their role was to take her home and I presume collect the debt, if possible.

5.  The 2nd defendant, before they took her home, told her that if she tried to run away, they would go to her home and do something.  This was the threat that frightened her.  Otherwise, there were no other threats to the victim except for a few swear-words when she walked towards Yuen Long Police Station.

6.  When they had reached her home, the victim tried to contact her husband but was unable to locate him.  So the three of them went to wait in a nearby restaurant.  Ultimately, the victim was able to contact her husband using her own mobile phone, who contacted the police.  They arrived not long after.  The defendants were then arrested.

7.  The 1st defendant under caution and in a video record of interview admitted that he had acted upon instructions to take the victim home to verify her address.  He would have been paid a sum of between $500 and $700.  The 2nd defendant denied the offence but today admits that he too would have received a similar amount of money if the address was verified and the debt collected.  This is the extent of the facts and the criminal intimidation. 

8.  I have heard full mitigation on behalf of both defendants today, and neither defendant are men with clear records.  The 1st defendant has four previous convictions of which none are similar to this one.  The 2nd defendant has one previous, not similar to this offence.

9.  The 1st defendant is a 43-year-old married man with one son.  He does work but, obviously, his financial situation meant that he took up this type of work to supplement his income. 

10.  The 2nd defendant is 29 years old, also married with one child.  He too has employment but it is an unstable income related to commission, so again like the 1st defendant, he took up this type of work to supplement his income.

11.  Both defendants’ best mitigation today is their plea of guilty.  I have considered the submissions, mitigation and the facts of this case, and I accept it is not the most serious set of facts for a case of this nature.  The defendants were not overly aggressive or threatening to the victim.  Moreover, the threat was a threat to property, not to her person or her family members, and it was a single threat.

12.  This offence and this type of case normally will attract a custodial sentence.  The rationale for that is there must be a deterrent element involved in sentences to deter others acting as debt collectors to such hapless victims of casinos in Macau.

13.  After careful consideration, I would find a starting point of 18 months appropriate but I will reduce this to 15 months to reflect there was a single and not overly aggressive threat.  Both have pleaded guilty and both are entitled to a discount of 5 months for their pleas.  Both defendants for Charge 2 will be sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment.