THE QUEEN v. LAU SEE-KAU

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No.573
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Power, V.-P.(giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant faced one charge of blackmail. He pleaded not guilty to that charge and was, after trial before Andrée Wiltens D.J., found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for 2½ years. He now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

2. The facts revealed a serious offence. A Hong Kong doctor was lured to China having been requested to treat patients in Shenzhen. While there he was tricked into joining a fraudulent card game in which it was made to appear that he had lost $160,000. The applicant then demanded he pay the money and threatened that if he refused to do so he would not live to return to Hong Kong. The applicant then told the doctor to sign an IOU and the doctor, being in fear, did so. The applicant with others then escorted the doctor back to Hong Kong where he made out two cheques, one for $100,000 and one for $55,000 post-dated. When he had done that the applicant tore up the IOU and dropped it on the floor. The doctor, wisely, reported the matter to the police and the applicant and one of his associates was arrested.

3. This was a bad offence. Coercion and blackmail were used which, no doubt, as the doctor said, put him in fear for his safety. Suggestions from the applicant that he now feels great remorse can be accorded very little weight given that he pleaded not guilty and made a determined effort to avoid conviction.

4. The judge said when sentencing:

"This is a bad case. You have shown absolutely no remorse and you have made false accusations against police officers."

He took into account the family circumstances of the applicant to which the applicant made reference before us today. He stated that he thought three years was an appropriate sentence but this he reduced to 2½ years bearing in mind the sentence of 18 months which had already been imposed for this offence in another court upon the co-accused. The judge remarked when sentencing that between 18 months to 3 years was the normal range of sentence for blackmail. We think it appropriate to state that we are not persuaded that any such "normal range" of sentence exists for blackmail. The circumstance of blackmail offences vary so much that sentences of very much longer than three years are often clearly appropriate. As for the present case 2½ years was a very lenient sentence indeed. There is absolutely no merit in this application and the applicant is ordered to lose two months of time.