HKSAR v. LAU YUK KEUNG

DCCC 27/2002

[2018] HKDC 142

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 27 OF 2002

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  This case involves the defendant’s plea of guilty to a single charge of failing to surrender to lawful custody without reasonable cause.

2.  The facts he has agreed to are very simple.  He faced a trial with other defendants involving three counts of conspiracy to defraud in 2002 in this court, or in the District Court.  He pleaded not guilty on 29 January 2002.  He was bailed with condition to attend a pre-trial review on 12 April of that year and then trial on 4 June of that year.

3.  The defendant’s absence started on 12 April 2002 when he did not attend the pre-trial review.  He did not attend the first day of trial in June of 2002.  Finally, on 30 October 2017 the defendant surrendered to the Central Police Station. 

4.  His Immigration records support the mitigation that has been advanced, that he did not leave Hong Kong from 12 April 2002 to 30 October 2017, so the defendant has, to use the colloquialism, been on the run for 17 years.

5.  The only charge the defendant faces today is that relating to the failure to surrender to custody.

6.  As far as his mitigation is concerned, he is now aged 55.  He had education to Form 1 level in Shenzhen.  Up until 2002, he had worked in a restaurant in North Point.  He is apparently in good health and was living with his uncle in Fanling.

7.  The defendant has some previous convictions, none of them similar to the offences for which he was originally charged in this matter.  He had been imprisoned in the past.  His last sentence of imprisonment was in 1994 for blackmail, common assault and claiming membership of a triad society, but that in itself is eight years before he actually escaped from custody in this case.

8.  Miss Wong adopts, I would say, a realistic approach in mitigation today.  She tells me the defendant has been hiding, as it were, in plain sight -- has been hiding in the New Territories, working as a farmer in Fanling, meaning he had to lead a simple life, presumably reliant on friends and relatives.  Of course, he could never take on a stable job, could not easily seek any kind of social service where identity card production is required. 

9.  I am told that he eventually tired of this life and was not aware at the time when he surrendered that this would be the only charge he faced, and she pointed to two major forms of mitigation, which are his plea of guilty and the fact that he surrendered to custody.

10.  Taking all these factors into account, we start with the position that in this court the maximum sentence that can be imposed is one of 12 months’ imprisonment. 

11.  We have here a defendant who has been on the run for a long time - some 17 years.  That obviously puts it into what I call the most serious category of this kind of offence.

12.  Also, it would appear the prosecution is no longer in a position to present any other charge than this one against this defendant.

13.  Against that is that the defendant surrendered into custody, meaning it is his own decision to bring this upon himself now. In fact, he has no similar convictions and obviously has not involved himself in any criminality since 1994.

14.  I believe those factors mean that I can reduce this from the maximum.

15.  I will take a starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to 6 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty.