HKSAR v. MOHAMMAD ASIF AND OTHERS

HCCC 278/2014
HCCC 150/2015
(Consolidated)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NOS 278 OF 2014 AND 150 OF 2015

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: This was a very well-planned and very professional criminal enterprise that crossed international borders. It all started quite innocently with Mr Manmohan Singh Mangat and his brother, Mr Naginder Singh Mangat, wanting to sell a piece of property in the Punjab. It is clear from what Mr Manmohan Singh Mangat and Naginder Singh Mangat said that Pali and Gagi in India leapt at the chance being offered and it was using this excuse that Gagi lured Mr Manmohan Singh Mangat to Hong Kong in order, he said, to settle the sale of the land face to face with Gagi’s alleged boss in Hong Kong.

This was a perfect setting to get the victim out of India where he and his brother own quite a large dairy farm and therefore to get Mr Manmohan Singh Mangat out of his comfort zone to a foreign land where he has never been before and where he does not know the language.

Gagi, in order to ensure that Mr Manmohan Singh Mangat would arrive in Hong Kong, made plans to meet and greet Mr Manmohan Singh when he and his two friends arrived in Hong Kong and, together with the 2nd and the 4th accused, met them at the airport. Using an excuse that their hotel room was not ready, they lured the victims into a van driven by the 4th accused and took them to the first location, a stone hut somewhere in Kam Tin.

There they were told the lie that they were going to be meeting Gagi’s boss very shortly and, after a few hours, they were taken away from that stone hut to the second location which is a recycling yard and it was there that the victims were subjected not only to threats that they will lose their lives if the ransom was not paid, they were also surrounded and beaten up. Choppers were held by the defendants - apart from the 3rd defendant who was not identified as being present at the second location - iron rods were used and, at one stage, the 4th accused used a pistol to point at the head of Mr Manmohan Singh Mangat to threaten him.

One can imagine the horror that Mr Manmohan Singh Mangat and his friends suffered over the course of the next few days. Negotiations were going on for the ransom to be paid. Mr Manmohan Singh Mangat was given a phone to call his brothers in India and Canada and, eventually, his brother in India paid a ransom of 500,000 rupees to Pali and Gagi. His brother than reported the matter to the Indian police and, subsequently, the Hong Kong police were informed.

It is a great credit to the Hong Kong police that, within a short time, the defendants were arrested. It is a credit to our local Hong Kong police force that they identified the places as well where the victims had been taken to within a very short time and gathered all the necessary information together with having gone through the CCTV tapes at the airport which, I must say, would have been a very daunting task. So full credit is due to our police force.

It is at the stage after the victims were held at the second location that, subsequently, after the Indian police had been informed, the victims were subsequently then taken to the third location which are premises next to where the 3rd defendant stayed. At this third location, the 3rd defendant was guarding them but it would appear that the treatment had eased off then. It does not appear that the 3rd defendant had threatened them and eventually, the 3rd defendant took them to the airport. At the airport, eventually, the Hong Kong police then were informed and eventually all the defendants were arrested.

This is clearly an offence which cries out loud for a deterrent sentence and the personal background of each of the defendants before me is not a persuasive factor in mitigation. Whatever their background, it pales into insignificance in face of the gravity of the present offence.

In the case of the 1st and 2nd defendants, they were obviously both leaders, according to PW2, of the whole criminal enterprise. The 1st defendant gave the orders to threaten and beat the victims and he was the tenant of the recycling yard - that is what we call location 2 - where the victims were detained and beaten. The 1st and 2nd defendants also gave orders and participated in the assaults on the victims. It is also worthy of note that Mr Manmohan Singh Mangat had a heart condition and it could have easily cost him his life.

The victims were kept for a total of about three days in the various locations. All the time they were fearful of losing their lives. As Mr Manmohan Singh Mangat said, even when he was told that he would be taken to the airport, he was still very nervous that it may not be true and it was not until he got to the airport that he felt so thankful that he even thanked the 3rd defendant.

Clearly, the most important aggravating factors in relation to the 1st and 2nd defendants’ case is the international element and the obviously well-planned offence of this nature, weapons being used, threats of death to the victims, the victims were bound up, tied up and made to stay in squalid conditions.

I consider that an appropriate starting point when considering sentence for both the 1st and 2nd defendants, who had absconded as well before trial, is a starting point of 18 years and I would add 1 more year for the international element in this case, giving a total of 19 years’ imprisonment. I can see no mitigating factor at all in their cases.

So they are each sentenced to 19 years’ imprisonment.

In relation to the 3rd defendant, as I said, his role is relatively minor, according to the evidence of the second prosecution witness, Mr Manmohan Singh Mangat, who only recognised him as having appeared only at the last location and that he took part in guarding them and also in providing them with food and water. He was also the person who took the victims to the airport and it is also from a CCTV tape which the police had obtained that showed, as Mr Sadhwani submitted and I have no reason to doubt, that he led the three victims up the escalator to the place where the ticketing counter is.

Obviously, he played no part in threatening the victims or in assaulting them, and he must have shown some sympathy towards the victims because, as Mr Mangat said, he displayed some sympathy and at the end, Mr Mangat was so grateful to be taken to the airport, he thanked the 3rd accused.

So in considering the 3rd accused’s case, I would consider a starting point of 14 years’ imprisonment to be appropriate. But having considered the above mitigating factors which I have said, the victim, Mr Mangat’s, consideration that he displayed some sympathy, I would therefore reduce that to 12 years’ imprisonment.

So the 3rd accused will go to prison for 12 years.

In the case of the 4th accused, he played just as an important part as the 1st and the 2nd defendants. He was in this enterprise from the very beginning. He picked the victims up from the airport with Gagi and the 2nd defendant, and took the victims to the first location. After leaving them there, the next time Mr Mangat saw the 4th accused was in the second location where he was one of the persons who surrounded the victims.

He was holding a chopper and threatened the victims and at one stage even held a pistol to the head of the victim Mr Mangat and told him that he was kidnapped and that he was to shut up and sit down. All the victims were tied up and they were told that if they wanted to be released, they would have to pay a ransom of 100 million rupees or their lives will be in danger.

On 26 October, the 2nd and 4th defendants told the victims that they have to pay the ransom and allowed Mr Mangat to call his brothers in India and Canada. After that, Gagi gave the order that the victims should be tortured. The 4th accused then took part together with the 2nd accused in assaulting the victims by punching and beating them with iron rods and tying them up. On 27 October, the 2nd and 4th accused took the victims to the third location.

Clearly, the 4th accused’s role is comparable to that of the 2nd accused. He also was the person who borrowed the van which picked up the victims from the airport and took them to the first location. The van owner gave evidence and said that after matters came to be reported to the police, the 4th accused told him to lie to the police if the police should ever ask him about the van.

So without hesitation, I am fully convinced that the 4th accused’s role in this case is totally on a par with the 1st and 2nd defendants and so I sentence him to 19 years’ imprisonment.

As for the 5th accused, he was present at the recycling yard, the second location, and according to Mr Mangat, took part in surrounding the victims and held an iron rod at the time. He also took part in assaulting the victims with the iron rod and threatened Mr Mangat that if he tried to escape, he would be beheaded. He also took part in tying up the victims.

According to Mr Mangat when he was giving evidence in court, he said the 5th accused did appear at the third location and handed back one of the victim’s passports to the victims before they were taken to the airport by the 3rd accused. So clearly, the 5th accused’s role in this is more serious than that of the 3rd accused but less than that of the 1st, 2nd and 4th accused.

So I sentence him to 15 years’ imprisonment.