R. v. CHAN SHUI CHEUNG

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Kempster, JA:

1. This is the judgment of the Court.

2. On 31 March 1992, after trial in the District Court, Chan Shui-cheung, then aged 21 years, was convicted by His Honour Judge Kilgour on one charge of blackmail contrary to s 23 of the Theft Ordinance (Cap 210) and one charge of claiming to be a member of a triad society. On 21 April, appropriate reports having been procured, he was sentenced to four years imprisonment for the first offence and to three months imprisonment on the second and the sentences were to run concurrently. Against the sentence of four years imprisonment he seeks leave to appeal.

3. Both offences were committed at the Loy Loy Restaurant, Tsuen Wan, on 13 June 1991. The applicant, together with a younger man (also convicted of blackmail on 31 March 1992) entered the restaurant at about 8 o'clock in the morning and asked to speak with "the boss". When they were introduced to the proprietor, Mr Fung, the applicant told him that they were "Wo Shing Wo" and had come to collect the monthly "Tor Tei" fee of $5,400. Mr Fung persuaded them to defer the matter to the evening and in the meanwhile, very sensibly, informed the police who took appropriate steps. When the applicant and his colleague returned to the restaurant with some 12 others, they were arrested. "Wo Shing Wo" is the name of a triad society and the presence of so many supporters in the evening suggests an explicit threat of violence.

4. In his undated Reasons for Sentence the judge found that the applicant, who had previous convictions for sexual offences and violence and had undergone a period of probation and two spells in a Training Centre, had played the dominant role and shown no remorse. He concluded that a serious penalty was called for.

5. For the applicant it is contended that the judge failed to take his age into account and placed too great an emphasis on deterrence. All in all, it was submitted, four years imprisonment was a manifestly excessive sentence.

6. We think that the judge was well aware of the applicant's age; after all, he procured a probation report about him after deferring sentence. He was also right to impose a relatively heavy sentence in a case where triad related threats were made in order to extract money from someone conducting a lawful business. Such pressures are indeed insidious and, albeit the applicant may not have been the ultimate beneficiary of monies paid for "protection", those who associate themselves with such practices can expect no mercy from the courts other than to encourage admissions of guilt. The sentence passed was severe for a man of the applicant's age but, in the circumstances outlined, we do not think it proper to interfere. No more do we accept the suggestions that the applicant was apparently being punished for other similar extortions in the neighbourhood or on account of his bad character. Further, these particular offences were committed while the applicant was still subject to post Training Centre supervision.

7. In the premises the application fails and must be dismissed.