HKSAR v. CHAN CHI KIN

DCCC536/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 536 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  I found the defendant guilty after trial of one charge of blackmail and one charge of claiming to be a member of a triad society.

2.  I do not intend to repeat the facts of the case, I have given full detail in my verdict.  To paraphrase, it is a triad trying to extort protection fee from a bar owner in Tsuen Wan area.  Offences of this nature, in particular, Charge 1, are very serious, and a term of imprisonment is unavoidable and appropriate. 

3.  Defendant is 31 years old, married but in the process of a divorce with young children.  I have heard full mitigation including his employment background and his family background. 

4.  He has 7 previous convictions, none are similar to either blackmail or triad-related offences.

5.  What is relevant for sentence would be the facts of this case.  I accept that the defendant at that time was acting alone; when he made the demand, that was a one-on-one conversation.  I have also taken into account what the demand was, a demand for $3,000 and beers.

6.  I have looked at two authorities, in particular, to assist me in sentence.  One being HKSAR v Tam Yun Chuen, CACC118/2008, where a defendant and 4 other men entered a massage parlour claiming to be members of 14K and demanding several thousand dollars a month. The Court of Appeal upheld a 4-year sentence.

7.  I have also considered the authority of Wong Fu Wa [1991] HKC 363 where the Court of Appeal said very clearly the sort of threats which are made, either implicitly or explicitly, cause fear and disquiet to victims.  The courts must demonstrate to offenders that this type of activity will not be tolerated.  In that authority, likewise, a bar was targeted by triads looking for monthly protection fee, and in that authority the Court of Appeal upheld a 4-year starting point.

8.  I have considered mitigation I have heard today and considered the facts of this case.  And, as I have said, I take into account what is relevant, that being it was a one-on-one demand.  The defendant did not go in with a group to back him up, nor was there any disturbance prior to this demand.

9.  For Charge 1, I will consider appropriate a 3-year starting point to reflect the gravity of the offence.  For Charge 2, I take a starting point of one year.  I see no reason for any further discount. For Charge 1, I impose a 3-year term of imprisonment; Charge 2, a one-year term of imprisonment.  Both charges to be served concurrently, that is, a total of 3 years’ imprisonment.