HKSAR v. SINGH GURMAIL

DCCC362/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 362 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Gurmail Singh, you have been convicted by me after trial of the offence of blackmail. It was an offence that took place on 18 February this year.

2.  The victim of the offence was a young man who had obtained the franchise to run an Internet Café called I-ONE in Parkes Street, Yau Ma Tei.  This was a lawful business which he was entitled to carry out without interference from people like you.  In May he had been the subject of a demand for protection money from your co-defendant, Kwok Tin-lun.  He called the police, but out of fear that his business would be affected, he decided not to pursue the complaint.  With a view to avoiding unlawful disturbance to his business he allowed Kwok Tin-lun to play games at the café free of charge thereafter.

3.  I know because I dealt with Kwok Tin-lun on 18 September this year that the victim was spared the attentions of Kwok between July 2011 and the end of January this year because Kwok was serving a sentence in a drug addiction treatment centre. 

4.  After his release, Kwok went again to the Internet Café on 18 February and made a demand for $1,500 per month as tor dei.  The victim refused to pay that sum and insisted that he could only afford $500 per month.  In order to reinforce his demand Kwok called you and you came to the café with three other men.  Kwok introduced you to the victim as “one of his people”.  Clearly, the purpose of your presence and the presence of the other men was to intimidate the victim into paying the money demanded.

5.  After arriving, you suggested that the victim only pay $1,000 per month rather than $1,500 earlier demanded by Kwok.  The victim felt he had no choice but to agree.  Discussions then followed as to how he would make payment.  You gave him your telephone number and told him to call him in order to make payment.  You then left the premises and the victim gave Kwok $1,000 representing the protection fee for the first month.

6.  As I said when I sentenced Kwok in September, blackmail of this kind is a serious offence.  Citizens of Hong Kong are entitled to conduct their businesses without intimidation and threats of violence. 

7.  What makes this sort of offence particularly serious is that it is an offence that victims are often too frightened to report.  Courts are bound to make it clear by the sentences they pass that this sort of conduct will not be tolerated.

8.  In considering the appropriate sentence in this case I have taken into account all that has been said by Mr Ma on your behalf. I bear in mind that you have never been convicted of a criminal offence before.  I bear in mind that you yourself did not utter the words “tor dei”. However, I was satisfied that you well-knew that that was what was being demanded and that your presence there was in order to intimidate the victim.  I take into account that the only money handed over by the victim was $1,000, and that was handed over to your co-defendant.  However, it was the courage of the victim in reporting the matter to the police that limited his loss to that amount.  The demand was that he pay a similar sum every month.

9.  Bearing in mind all the circumstances including your previous good character I am satisfied that the appropriate starting point in your case is 3 years’ imprisonment.  There is nothing, in my view, that warrants any discount from that starting point and therefore the sentence I pass is 3 years’ imprisonment.