THE QUEEN v. CHU YING LUNG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 539
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Mayo, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his conviction on two counts of false imprisonment. Initially he also sought leave to appeal against the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon him but he has now abandoned this application.

2. The facts of the case were relatively simple. The two victims referred to in counts 4 and 6 were unsuccessful gamblers who had lost their money in Macau.

3. In each case the men, who were separate and independent, were approached by a man on their way to the Macau Ferry Pier when they were returning to Hong Kong.

4. They would be offered a loan at a "reasonable" rate of interest to enable them to continue gambling. The loans were made and the extra money was then lost at gambling.

5. The man offering the loan had obtained full details of the men's families and other circumstances. They insisted upon accompanying the victims back to Hong Kong on the hydrofoil so that an attempt could be made immediately to see if moneys could be raised from the relatives to repay the loans.

6. When this could not be achieved immediately the victims were told that they had to go with some men to premises at Mui O in Lantau Island where they would be kept until the loans were repaid.

7. In the meantime contact would be maintained with the relatives who would be aware that the victims would not be released until the moneys were forthcoming. The amount payable would increase substantially the longer it remained outstanding.

8. The first victim Mr Chan gave evidence of being approached on the morning of 28 May 1994. He borrowed $40,000 and was required to repay $44,000. As he could not repay this amount immediately he was brought back to Hong Kong and was told that the amount had increased to $50,000.

9. The first three defendants in the proceedings below were the men who met Mr Chan in Hong Kong. They took him to the flat at Mui O at 11.00am on 28 May and kept him there while they undertook discussions and negotiations with Mr Chan's relatives. The applicant who was the 4th defendant below visited the premises and took an active part in attempting to obtain moneys from the relatives. According to Mr Chan he assumed a role of being a "nice guy".

10. The second victim Mr Cheung was returning to Hong Kong the next morning 29 May when a similar approach was made to him. He borrowed $20,000 which was immediately lost and was informed that he owed $28,000. Like Mr Chan he and his relatives were unable to come up with the necessary cash immediately and he was also taken to the premises at Mui O.

11. The police raided the premises in the evening of 29 May. They had been able to trace the premises after a report was made to them from the telephone calls which had been made. The applicant was not present at the time of the raid. He was arrested on 31 May. Both of the victims identified him at the identification parade held on 1 June.

12. Two of the defendants who were given bail absconded and a third defendant pleaded guilty to some of the offences.

13. The victims and the relatives who were approached all gave evidence which His Honour Judge Hawkes accepted as being truthful and reliable. The applicant did not give evidence.

14. In the grounds of appeal which have been lodged which are in a general form the applicant claims that there was insufficient evidence against him to justify his convictions and that in any event he had been "nice" to the victims. He did not add anything to these grounds before us. There was ample evidence for the learned judge to convict the applicant of these offences. His convictions are in no way unsafe or unsatisfactory and the application is dismissed.