HKSAR v. LAM KWONG KIN

DCCC 81/2024

[2025] HKDC 58

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 81 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to a single charge of Attempting to pervert the course of justice, contrary to Common Law and Sections 159G and 159J of the Crimes Ordinance.

2.  Particulars of the offence show the date on which the offence is alleged to have occurred.  The defendant is alleged to have frustrated and hindered the lawful apprehension of a man called Chong by the Hong Kong Police Force in relation to an investigation under a Police Reference of KW/RN 22000827.

3.  Facts which have been agreed show the defendant at the material time was employed by a company called CM Security Services Limited working as security personnel at the Kowloon Hotel which gave him access to the guest list of the hotel.  There was at the time a police investigation under the reference KW/RN 22000827 which related to an offence of conspiracy to rob that occurred sometime on the morning of 14 December 2022.  A Mr Chong together with others had blackmailed a patron of a, appears to be a prostitute, when the patron was receiving sexual services from her.  In total, the victim had been asked for some $150,000 in settlement of the incident and had paid them a total of $110,000.  The police had learned that this man called Chong, who was one of the people under investigation, was staying in Room 1824 of the Kowloon Hotel. By the time they came to arrest him on 23 December 2022, this man called Chong had already left.  It would appear that that was as a result of him being informed by the defendant that the police wanted to find him in relation to some matter.

4.  The defendant was arrested for this offence and conducted a video-recorded interview.  In the video-recorded interview, he provided copious details of his involvement in this offence.  He said, in essence, that he had only informed Chong of the fact that there were police officers and he was unaware of the offence that was being allegedly committed by Chong.  He went on to say that he had met Chong in a bar back in 2019.  He had been working between the 20th and 23 December, he had been working on night shift of the hotel.  He understood that Chong was staying in Room 1825.  On the evening of 22 December, he was aware that police officers were visiting the hotel conducting an investigation.  He heard that some police officers were in Room 1826.  He realised that 1824 and 1825 were occupied by Chong and he guessed that the police were looking for Chong, so he then went on and informed that Chong was in the lobby.  He was aware that Chong had been involved in offences of drugs before so he thought the police were looking for him and he sent a message about it to him.  That of course sets out the facts of the charge prosecution have brought and the defendant admits that he did that with intent to pervert the course of justice and did an act in this case which had the tendency to pervert the course of justice.  On the basis of that I have convicted the defendant.

5.  The defendant’s antecedents show him to be a young man.  He is now 22 years old, completed Form 3 education, worked as a waiter and a security guard after leaving school.  He has one conviction, in fact it was committed post this offence.  He was convicted on 24 January 2024 with possession of a dangerous drug, served 6 months’ imprisonment suspended for 3 years, a dissimilar offence so not particularly relevant to my decision today.

6.  I am also informed by the prosecution in respect of the antecedents of this offence that the defendant was arrested for the possession of dangerous drugs case on 8 November 2022.  He did not attend police bail in respect of that matter since 14 January 2023 and entered Mainland China on 15 January 2023.  That would mean that this offence was committed while the defendant was on police bail for the drug offence and of course as the defendant absconded from 14 January 2023 that in fact is also a matter that the court can consider when determining the extent of any reduction in sentence for the plea of guilty for this matter.

7.  Now turning to the offence itself, the defendant appears to have been unaware of the offence for which Chong was being investigated, nevertheless, the offence of robbery is undoubtedly a serious offence and that is one of the factors I must consider when determining the relevant factors for sentencing in the case of perverting the course of justice.

8.  The second factor I must consider is the degree of conduct persistence in the conduct.  Well there has been no persistence of the conduct of this case, the defendant simply informed Chong on the one occasion of the police interest in him.  And I must also consider the effect of what the defendant did on the course of justice itself.  Well I am unaware how it did in fact affect the course of justice, I am not aware if Chong was later arrested or convicted of an offence.  However, I shall bear in mind when the defendant committed this offence, he was still a young man, he was of clear record at the time when he actually committed the offence and the offence itself was of a limited nature, simply informing Chong of the police interest in him.

9.  There are no guideline sentences on how to sentence an offence of this nature because the facts of these offences vary considerably and the seriousness of the conduct varies considerably.  Having regard to the factors that I am aware of, I will determine in respect of this defendant the appropriate starting for sentence would be one of 12 months’ imprisonment.

10.  There is an aggravating factor of course, which is the fact the offence was committed whilst the defendant was on bail for a dissimilar offence.  I shall consider it as an aggravating factor, I will add a further 3 months to the starting point for sentence which leaves me with a starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment.  I must now give the defendant credit for his plea of guilty.  That credit is somewhat affected by the fact the defendant absconded in relation to this matter, so I will give him a 20 per cent discount from sentence, as is suggested by authorities I have been referred to.  That means that the 3 months’ enhancement is reduced back down to 12 months’ imprisonment leading to a final sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment.