R. v. LEUNG KIM HUNG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No. 110
(Criminal)

____________

____________________________________________

J U D G M E N T   O F   T H E   C O U R T

____________________________________________

Macdougall, V.-P.:

1. The applicant, who stood trial with two co-defendants before Her Honour Judge Chua in the District Court, was convicted on one charge each of conspiracy to blackmail, claiming to be a member of a triad society, criminal intimidation, blackmail and theft. He was acquitted on five charges of blackmail, one charge of criminal intimidation and two charges of theft. The judge passed concurrent sentences of three years' imprisonment on the conspiracy to blackmail and three months' imprisonment each on the claiming to be a member of a triad society, criminal intimidation, blackmail and theft charges.

2. Very briefly the evidence led by the prosecution was that the applicant was the leading figure in an extortion racket in which minibus drivers who were picking up passengers for Chai Wan from Factory Street in Shaukeiwan were each forced to pay $150 a month for the use of a minibus pick up point. Those who refused to pay were threatened and forced to leave the pick-up point.

3. Two of the alleged victims refused to attend court. Other bus drivers who were called to give evidence for the prosecution demonstrated a reluctance to testify - a feature that is regrettably all too common in cases of this nature. Suffice it to say that there remained a formidable body of evidence comprised of the testimony of two minibus drivers, a police officer who had been posing as a minibus driver, police officers who maintained direct surveillance on activities at the pick-up point and an audio-recording of a conversation between the applicant and the police officer posing as a driver, some photographs and a cautioned statement made by the applicant after his arrest.

4. The applicant, who elected to give evidence, testified that while working in a garage in Chai Wan he became aware that many minibus drivers and operators were grumbling about the chaotic situation prevailing at the minibus pick-up point in Factory Street. He therefore offered, in return for payment of a fee of $150 a month from each driver, to manage the stand by ensuring that the drivers queued in an orderly fashion, by directing passengers to the bus of the head of the queue and by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning the minibuses. He denied that he had ever threatened or blackmailed any driver or asserted that he was a member of a triad society. Drivers who did not join the scheme were not forced to leave the pick-up point. The judge accepted the prosecution evidence and disbelieved the applicant.

5. In his personally drafted grounds of appeal the applicant asserts that he did not conspire with anyone to commit blackmail, that there was no evidence that he had ever threatened anyone and that there were doubts in the police evidence.

6. There was ample evidence before the judge that there was a conspiracy, that the applicant was one of the conspirators and that he had threatened the police officer who was posing as a minibus driver. Nothing that the applicant has told this court supports the contention that the police evidence was so flawed that the judge should have acquitted him. The application is therefore refused.

7. An application for an extension of time within which to lodge an appeal against an overall sentence of three years' imprisonment is unmeritorious. It is also refused.