HKSAR v. LEUNG YAU HO AND OTHERS

HCCC 374/2024

[2025] HKCFI 5544

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: D1 has 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. He is committed to this court for sentence.

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. Bank cards, mobile phones, and 3,500 cash were taken away. That 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 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, had been made to the victim. Upon his denial, the victim was further assaulted. Later on, negotiation as to the amount of repayment money for his 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, D4 removed the blindfold and untied the victim.

When D1 and D4 met up with the victim’s family member with a view to collect the $40,000, they were arrested by the police.

D1 is now 41, educated up to Form 3 level. Prior to his arrest he was a delivery worker making $15,000 a month. He has 18 criminal records involving multiple offences, but none related to the present two offences.

Both offences are serious offences with a maximum sentence for 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 sustain any serious injuries. The notable injuries were lacerations on his face near his right eye.

Although the ransom money demanded for the victim’s release was not substantial, the mean in demanding repayment should be deterred. The commission of such offence nevertheless should not be encouraged. The plan was to lure the victim into coming to the hostel. It was a carefully orchestrated plan. I accept the period of time for the victim’s detention was not substantial.

After a careful consideration of all the circumstances, 12 years’ imprisonment will be adopted as the starting point. In this case, apart from the defendant’s plea, I

don’t see any other mitigating factor. As such, a one-third discount will be given. For the 1st count, the defendant is sentenced to 8 years’ 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 card could not be used to withdraw money. Wild allegations had been made and the victim was blindfolded and tied up at the time. He was assaulted by a gang of multiple persons. No doubt, the victim was terrified.

Having considered the circumstances of the case, a starting point for Count 2 would be set at 9 years’ imprisonment. A one‑third discount will be given for D1. As such, he is sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment.

Having considered the totality principle, in respect of the 2nd count, 2 years of Count 2 is ordered to run consecutively to the 8 years imposed on Count 1.

For the two counts of offences D1 stands convicted, he is therefore sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.