The Summary of Facts reveal the following. The victim and D2 have been friends for over 10 years. On 1 September 2021, the victim received a call from D2 whom he fancied to be his girlfriend. D2 indicated that she had been short of money, broken up with her boyfriend and could have sex with the victim. The victim then went to Bell House, a building in Yau Ma Tei, to meet D2.
Upon arrival at the corridor on the 7th floor, the victim was then pushed into a room of one hostel. He was assaulted by D1 and D3 repeatedly. In the course of the attack, D3 even used a baseball bat to strike the victim. The victim was then taken to Room 9 of the hostel. Inside that room, the victim was tied up, blindfolded, and kicked and stepped on his head by the gang of D1 and D3. Bank cards, mobile phones, and 3,500 cash were taken away. D3 also demanded passwords from the victim for his online and telephone banking facilities, ATM cards, and Alipay accounts. The victim succumbed under the pressure.
Attempts were made to withdraw money from the victim’s bank accounts but unsuccessfully. Allegations of D2 being raped by the victim and debt being owed, which were denied by the victim, had been made. Upon his denial, the victim was further assaulted. Later on, negotiation as to the amount of repayment money for the victim’s release had taken place. As a result, the victim stated that he could obtain $40,000 from his family. The victim then called up his aunt. After an agreement had been reached, D3 started to remove the blindfold and untied the victim.
When other members of the gang, D1 and D4, went to collect the $40,000 of repayment or ransom from PW1’s aunt, D1 was arrested by the police. D4 managed to leave the scene and was not arrested until 22 December 2021.
D4 is now 38, educated up to Form 3 level. Prior to his arrest, he was an air-conditioning technician. He has seven unrelated criminal records.
It was submitted that D4’s involvement was minimal and was not a party to the ill-treatment PW1 had in the afternoon. Although D4 was not a party to the ill-treatment and a late arrival at the hostel, he was, in my view, a knowing party to the victim’s detention and to the demand of the ransom. It was also revealed in the Summary of Facts, paragraph 7, that it was D4 who entered the room and asked PW1, the victim, if he would like to settle the matter. It was then D4 who took charge of the negotiation for the victim’s release.
Seven calls were made between D4 and PW2, that’s the victim’s aunt, between 7.47 pm on 1 September 2021 and 2.15 am on 2 September 2021. Between 31 August 2021 and 11.04 pm on 1 September 2021, there were 31 calls made between D1 and D4. As to what D4 told the police after his arrest, I note that his statements to the police were made almost four months later.
In HKSAR v Kan Chan-hung and Another, CACC 489/2002, it was held that section 42 of the Offence Against the Person Ordinance was a very serious one and warranted a severe deterrent sentence. The maximum was life imprisonment and the minimum was no less than 8 years’ imprisonment.
In this case, violence had been inflicted onto the victim. He was blindfolded and tied up, but luckily, he did not suffer or sustain any serious injuries. The notable injuries were lacerations on his face near his right eye.
In this case, the hold-up time was also not that lengthy. I believe it was only seven hours total. Although the ransom money demanded for the victim’s release was not substantial, the means used in demanding repayment should not be encouraged. The commission of such offence nevertheless should be deterred. In this particular case, the plan was to lure the victim into coming to the hostel was carefully planned and orchestrated.
After a careful consideration of all the circumstances, 12 years’ imprisonment will be adopted as the starting point. Apart from his plea there are no other mitigating factors in this particular case.
As such, for the sole offence D4 stands convicted, he is sentenced to 96 months’ imprisonment.