HKSAR v. LEUNG YAU HO AND OTHERS

HCCC 374/2024

[2025] HKCFI 5543

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 374 OF 2024

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The 2nd defendant and the 3rd defendant, D2 and D3, have pleaded guilty to one count of forcible taking away or detention of a person with intent to procure a ransom for his liberation, contrary to section 42 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, and one count of robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance. They are committed to this court for sentence.

Summary of Facts revealed the following. The victim and D2 had 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 both 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. Well, D1 and D3 were members of the gang plus others. Bank cards, mobile phones, and $3,500 cash were taken away. The above actions formed the subject matters of the robbery charge. D3 also demanded passwords from the victim for the online and telephone banking, 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 for the victim’s release had taken place between the parties. 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 then started to remove the blindfold and untied the victim.

When members of the gang, ie D1 and D4, met up with the aunt, ie the victim’s family member, with a view to collect the 40,000 repayment or ransom, they were arrested by police. D2 and D3 were arrested on the next date. Police also found the victim’s blood on a pair of jeans worn by D2 at the material time.

D2 is now 31, educated up to Form 3 level. Prior to her arrest, she was unemployed. She has one unrelated criminal record. D3 is now 41, educated up to Form 1 level. Prior to his arrest, he was also unemployed. He has five criminal records, two relating to robbery.

In a case as serious as the present one, personal circumstances pale into insignificance. Both offences are serious offences with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. 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. 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 whole uptime also was not that lengthy. I believe it was only seven hours in total.

Although the ransom money demanded for the victim’s release was not substantial, the means used in demanding repayment in such a way should be deterred. The commission of such offence nevertheless should not be encouraged. In this particular case, the plan 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. In this case, both D2 and D3 provided non‑prejudicial statements to the police implicating the mastermind, one Coco Zheng, so that her name had been put onto the wanted list. As such, a 40 per cent discount would be given. For the 1st count, both defendants are sentenced to 86 months’ imprisonment.

As to the 2nd count of robbery, this was also a serious robbery involving the use of violence with a weapon, ie a baseball bat. Violence was inflicted before the robbery. Further violence was also inflicted after the robbery when the ATM bank card could not be used to withdraw money. Wild allegations had been made and victim was blindfolded and tied up at the time. He was assaulted by a gang of multiple persons. No doubt, the victim was terrified at the time. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, a starting point of 9 years will be adopted for D2. A 40 per cent discount will be given for D2. As such, she is sentenced to 64 months’ imprisonment.

For D3, he has two similar robbery records. Given his prior similar records, the starting point for D3 will be increased to one of 10 years’ imprisonment. A 40 per cent discount will also be given to D3. As such, he is sentenced to 72 months’ imprisonment in respect of Count 2. In respect of D2, 24 months of Count 2 is ordered to run consecutively to the 86 months imposed on Count 1. In respect of D3, 30 months of Count 2 is ordered to run consecutively to the 86 months imposed on Count 1.

For the two counts of offences both D2 and D3 stand convicted, they are sentenced to 110 and 116 months, ie 9 years and 2 months and 9 years and 8 months’ imprisonment respectively.