HKSAR v. CHUI KWOK FAI

DCCC 1076/2017

[2018] HKDC 754

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1076 OF 2017

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  On 7 October 2017 at around noontime, the defendant went to a money changer in Kwun Tong to hand to the staff there a note together with his ID card demanding the repayment of $30,000 as outstanding wages, and claimed that it was Mr. Ching, one of the partners running the money exchange business, who had promised him before.

2.  As Mr. Ching was one of the bosses, the person-in-charge of the shop, Mr. Kam, was immediately called back to the shop to deal with the situation. Having confirmed that the defendant was neither an existing nor ex-employee, Mr. Kam told him to leave but the defendant refused. The standoff soon escalated into fierce rows between the two with lots of swearing at each other.

3.  It was during these rows that the defendant uttered those threatening words like “I will chop you for sure” with triad overtones like “I am Sun Yee On ‘Lung Tau’”.  Eventually, the police were notified and the defendant knowing the police were on the way remained at the scene and was arrested. (The above-mentioned incident was in fact captured by the CCTV of the shop with audio recording)

4.  “Sun Yee On” is one of the active triad societies in Hong Kong conducting a number of illegal activities; while “Lung Tau” refers to the highest decision maker of “Sun Yee On” the triad society.

5.  The defendant pleaded guilty to 2 counts of offence, namely, claiming to be an office bearer of a triad society (Charge 1) and criminal intimidation (Charge 2).

6.  There is, on the face of it, something odd about this case in that the defendant gave his ID card to the staff so that his identity was made known and knowing full well that the police were called, he nevertheless remained at the scene until he was arrested, it was for this reason I adjourned the matter for two psychiatrists’ reports to be prepared on the defendant to see if anything wrong with his mind.

7.  Now the reports are before me, both doctors are of the opinion that the defendant had a history of drug-induced psychosis, but his current mental condition is stable and needs no in-patient treatment.  

8.  The defendant, aged 35, has amassed 5 prior convictions over the past two decades with one similar to charge 1 – claiming to be a member of a triad society – in 2005 for which he was given a prison term of 2 months.

9.  His next conviction after 2005 came in 2017, he was sent to prison for 4 ½ months for possession of drugs. While he was serving his time, counsel said, the defendant got acquainted with another inmate, Mr. Ching - the partner of the money changer, and they soon became good friends. Mr. Ching offered to help the defendant financially telling him to go to his shop to get money, should the latter find life difficult after release from prison.

10.  Counsel said this is not a case of some thugs asking for ‘Tor Tei’ (extortion money) or anything like that. It all began with Mr. Ching’s promises which made the defendant pay a visit to the money changer on the day in question with the belief that Mr. Ching would honour his promises.

11.  When things didn’t turn out the way the defendant had wanted, it turned into verbal abuses between the defendant and Mr. Kam, the person-in-charge of the shop. It’s submitted by counsel that those threatening words were thus uttered and they were uttered in the heat of the moment. 

12.  I must say no one in their right mind would ever believe that one could get money out of the money changer in this way; there was some naivety on the part of the defendant to believe that. As absurd as the story sounded, given the oddity I have mentioned earlier about the ID card etc, I could not rule out the possibility that there might be some truth in it.

13.  As can be seen from the CCTV footages, Mr. Kam was as fierce and abusive as they come, he was anything but angel, he wasn’t in any way being intimidated by the defendant’s threats (the fact that the victim had not been intimidated does not amount to defence). 

14.  Given the peculiar facts of the case, I am prepared to treat it as something out of the ordinary and to take a more lenient view of the matter.

15.  Charge 1 carries a maximum of 15 years’ imprisonment while charge 2 five years.

16.  For the reasons given above, I take 12 months as the starting point for each offence; as his pleas are timely, he would get the usual one-third discount. Giving the appropriate discount, the sentence is reduced to 8 months for each offence. And I order the terms to run concurrently with each other.

17.  The defendant is therefore sentenced to a total term of 8 months’ imprisonment.