R. v. NG WANG CHI and Others

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 225
(Criminal)

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Ching, J.A. (delivering the judgment of the Court) :

1. These five applicants were convicted of a number of offences after a trial in which none of them gave evidence upon the general issue. The first charge was against the fourth and fifth applicants who were the sixth and seventh accused and related to events occurring in October of 1994. The second to sixth charges were against one or more of the first, second, third and fifth applicants who were the third, fourth, fifth and seventh accused and relates to events occurring on 19th September, 1995, or a period spanning that day and the next. Details of the convictions are as follows :-

(1) Charge 1

2. The fourth and fifth applicants were convicted of lending money, being $50,000 to Lok Lai-ping, at an effective rate of interest which exceeded 60% per annum, namely 551.020% per annum contrary to section 24(1) of the Money Lenders Ordinance, Cap.163.

(2) Charge 2

3. The first and third applicants were convicted of false imprisonment contrary to common law in that they together with another person unknown unlawfully and injuriously imprisoned Lok Lai-ping and detained her against her will at Hoi Wu Villa, 1st floor, No. 293, Castle Peak Road and at Sun Wah Mei Villa, mezzanine floor, No. 14, Tai Kwong Lane.

(3) Charge 3

4. The third applicant was convicted of common assault contrary to common law and section 40 of the offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap.212, in that he together with a person unknown assaulted Lok Lai-ping at Hoi Wu Villa.

(4) Charge 4

5. The second applicant was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He was acquitted of that charge but was convicted instead of common assault in that he together with a person unknown assaulted Lok Lai-ping at Hoi Wu Villa.

(5) Charge 5

6. The second, third and fifth applicants were convicted of blackmail contrary to sections 23(1) and 23(3) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210, in that at the Carvel Restaurant, Tai Kwong Lane, with a view to gain for themselves made an unwarranted demand of $210,000 from Lok Lai-ping with menaces.

(6) Charge 6

7. The third and fifth applicants were convicted of detaining a person in a vice establishment contrary to section 134(1)(b) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200, in that they with two other named persons detained Lok Lai-ping against her will at Sun Wah Mei Villa being premises kept as a vice establishment.

Each of the applicants applies for leave to appeal against conviction.

8. Lok Lai-ping was a woman who had prostituted herself and who continued to do so after her marriage. Her husband ran into trouble with the law and was arrested. At the time she was not working but she needed to raise money to pay for her husband's defence. She telephoned a woman known as Ah Shut with whom she had previously worked. It appears that Ah Shut had an interest in the brothel known as Sun Wah Mei Villa. There Lok Lai-ping obtained work as a prostitute her rate being $350 per customer of which she was allowed to keep $200. Eventually, Ah Shut arranged for her to receive a loan of $50,000. She saw the fourth and fifth applicants and received the loan. She says that she signed an I.O.U. but this was never produced. The terms of the loan were that she was to repay $1,000 per day for 80 days. There was a penalty of $500 per day if she were late. According to Lok Lai-ping she repaid the money although she was a total of 10 days late. Evidence to the contrary was given by Ah Shut but this was rejected in its entirety by the Judge.

9. By 19th September, 1995, Lok Lai-ping had left the Sun Wah Mei Villa and was working at the Hoi Wu Villa. At about 8.00 p.m. that day she was confronted by three men, two of whom were the first and third applicants. There was some cross-examination as to whether or not the third applicant wanted her sexual services but that is an irrelevant detail. They accused her of still owing money to someone they described as their elder brother. The third applicant spoke on the telephone and she overheard him say to the fifth applicant, whom he addressed as elder brother, that the girl had been located and asking if she should be "carried back". They told her to leave with them and upon her refusal the third applicant delivered a blow to her face while another of the men pulled her hair. She was eventually escorted out of the Hoi Wu Villa and was taken to the Sun Wah Mei Villa by car. In a cautioned statement found admissible after objection the first applicant admits that he was one of the men and that he drove the car. In another cautioned statement also ruled admissible after objection the third applicant admitted that he was another of the men and that he had slapped her face.

10. On arrival at the Sun Wah Mei Villa she was taken to a room where after a time she saw the second and fifth applicants. There she was beaten by the second applicant who demanded to know why she had not made repayment. Subsequently she was taken down to a cafe known as the Carvel. With her were the second, third and fifth applicants. There she was told that she was required to make a further payment of $210,000 and she was to work off the debt by resuming her services at the Sun Wah Mei Villa. She was required to sign an I.O.U. for that amount and this was produced as an exhibit. There was cross-examination on this document, for she had given three different versions as to how and where it had come to be written. One of those versions was that it had been drafted by the fifth applicant. The fifth applicant told the police that he had never received any education and through his counsel suggested that he was illiterate. There was no evidence as to his illiteracy. The gravamen of the offence, moreover, was the demand for the money, not the drawing up or signing of the document and drawn up and signed it most certainly was. From all of the circumstances it is clear that it was the fifth applicant who was demanding the money with the assistance of the second and third applicants. It is clear also that they were doing so with menaces. Indeed, in one of his cautioned statements the fifth applicant claimed that he had lent Lok Lai-ping $50,000 but he said he had lent it without interest and that he had done so as a friend. Notwithstanding that, he subsequently said that he told her to pay him $60,000, the additional $10,000 being interest. Since he gave no evidence, no explanation was given by him in Court or by way of cautioned statement or otherwise for the signing of the I.O.U. in the sum of $210,000.

11. Upon leaving the cafe Lok Lai-ping was escorted back to the Sun Wah Mei Villa by the second and third applicants where she was required to service four customers. She never tried to run away before reaching the brothel or afterwards. Nor did she inform any of the other girls, the customers or the person in charge, whom she addressed as her godfather, of her predicament. Her explanation was that she was frightened and this was accepted by the Judge. At about 12.00 noon on 20th September, 1995, she telephoned her father-in-law who eventually caused the police to rescue her.

12. There is no question of law involved in these applications. The only questions are questions of fact which are primarily for the trial Judge who sees and hears the witnesses. None of the applicants gave evidence on the general issue and the evidence was both abundant and all one way. If properly accepted by the Judge the convictions were therefore justified. The Judge considered all the points made against the evidence of Lok Lai-ping but on the whole found her to be a credible witness to the requisite standard of proof. Nothing has been said to show any grounds upon which this Court can interfere. These applications are therefore dismissed.