HKSAR v. NG NGAN TAI

CACC175/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 175 OF 1999

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 17 OF 1999)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Stuart-Moore V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 4th March 1999, the Applicant (D2 at trial) was convicted, following a trial before Judge Longley in the District Court, on one charge of false imprisonment and three offences of lending money at an excessive interest rate. She was later sentenced to two years' imprisonment on the first charge with concurrent six months' sentences for the remaining offences. The Applicant now seeks leave to appeal against conviction.

2. The offences were closely related and they provide a distressingly familiar story. The victim (PW1) worked with the Applicant in a massage establishment. The Applicant is 41. PW1 was much younger, although the papers in the Appeal Bundle do not provide her exact age. PW1's father was in considerable debt and, knowing that the Applicant had lent money to others, she borrowed $40,000 in a space of a few days from the Applicant. She was required to make repayment at an effective annual rate of interest of 240%.

3. Soon after the third loan, which brought the total to $40,000, PW1 left her place of work and went to work in another similar establishment. She did so without informing the Applicant that she was leaving. Within two days the Applicant had located her. She came with two men, (one of whom was D1 in the trial), and took PW1 to a massage room. PW1 was informed that she would not be permitted to leave the building until she had repaid the money, by serving clients there. D1 threatened her with assault if she attempted to leave. In the hours that followed, she was constantly guarded except when in the company of clients she was taken to serve. However, about eight hours from the first moment her freedom of movement had been taken away, she seized an opportunity to use a telephone in the building to call a friend for help It was her friend who called the police and in due course PW1 was rescued in a frightened state.

4. Against that background, the Applicant has put forward a ground of appeal which reads:

"All along I cannot accept reality. It was alleged that I imprisoned her. I do not understand what is 'imprisonment'. What is lending illegal loan. I lent her money in middle of July. She said to give me at beginning of August. Is this called lending illegal loan, so I am unhappy and request to appeal."

5. It is perhaps the fact, as she expresses it herself, that the Applicant cannot accept reality. The evidence of PW1 was clear and the outcome of the trial depended upon her credibility. She gave evidence of having been falsely imprisoned for a number of hours in frightening and menacing circumstances by the Applicant accompanied by two men to bully her into submission. She gave evidence also of loans being made at an alarmingly high rate of interest. The Applicant is fully aware of that and, faced with the evidence, she chose as is her perfect right not to testify on her own behalf.

6. The evidence all went one way and the judge fairly and thoroughly assessed the evidence before coming to the conclusion that the Applicant was guilty.

7. There is no substance in this application and it is dismissed.