HKSAR v. KI CHUN YIM

DCCC 408/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 408 OF 2011

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1. I convicted the defendant after trial of nine charges of blackmail and one charge of doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice.

2. In September 2006, a businessman, Mr. X, met the defendant in a bar where she was working as a hostess. The defendant and Mr. X had an affair. At the end of 2006 the defendant rented a flat which the defendant moved into. Mr. X would stay at the flat 3 to 4 nights per week and he paid the defendant HKD20,000 per month towards her expenses including the rent for the flat.

3. In August 2007, Mr. X wished to end the relationship. He said the defendant was becoming more demanding financially. Mr. X told the court that between August and December 2007 the defendant started to demand one off lump sums of money of between HKD0.8 to 1 million. Mr. X told the court that he did not have this kind of money. Mr. X said that the defendant then started to make threats against Mr. X, his wife and daughter. She telephoned Mr. X’s wife telling her to urge Mr. X to be reasonable. The defendant started to bombard Mr. X with telephone calls and messages and would become very angry and threatening if he did not respond. The defendant told Mr. X that she had employed private detectives to follow him and she was able to give details of his movements. The defendant says that she is in contact with persons on the mainland who would carry out her threats.

4. Mr. X said that by December 2007 the demands of the defendant had increased to HKD2 million and the threats continued. Mr. X told his business partner Mr. Y about the demands of the defendant and he tried to act as a mediator. The defendant later started to make threats in relation to Mr. Y and his family. On the 12 December the defendant was arrested following an incident outside her residence involving Mr. X. On 10 January 2007 she was bound over in respect of that matter.

5. Mr. X said following the arrest of the defendant he checked himself into hospital so as to avoid the defendant. He said her demands continued and on one occasion he sneaked out of hospital and went to her residence to reason with her. Mr. X said this failed when she chased him from the flat at knife point and he ran down the 8 flights of stairs.

6. Mr. X said because of the demands and threats he paid the defendant HKD1 million on 27 December 2007 (Charge 1).

7. In January 2008 the defendant falsely claimed to Mr. X that she was pregnant with his child and that she was going to Canada to give birth. Over the next few months the defendant’s demands for money and threats continued but the amount had increased to HKD8 million (Charge 2). Mr. X said that when he got out of bed there would be at least 30 missed calls from her. He said that the rule was that if he did not respond in 12 hours she would start to threaten him. PW1 said his health deteriorated and he would lie trembling in bed covered by quilts. He said he developed heart and psychiatric problems. Mr. X said that he was told by the defendant that she had a mastermind and that if she failed there was a back-up mechanism in place.

8. In May 2008 the defendant was still demanding with threats HKD8 million and on 4 June 2008 he paid her HKD3 million via Mr. Y (Charge 3).

9. Mr. X thought that would be the end of the matter. However, in February 2009 the defendant claimed that she was back from Canada. She repeated her previous threats and said she was in urgent need of money. Mr. X told Mr. Y about the return of the defendant and Mr. X said that they thought the sky had fallen down on them. On 2 March 2009 Mr. X gave her HKD800,000 (Charge 4).

10. Between March and June 2009 the defendant increased her harassment and threats against Mr. X and Mr. Y and their families and her demand had increased to HKD120 million. In May she went to his office with a man called Wah Chai to press her demands. She only left when she was told the police would be called (Charge 5).

11. On 27 March 2009 she informed Mr. X that she was on her way to the home of his wife and daughter, Mr. X had been obliged to leave his home because of threats made against his wife. He said his wife had become hysterical and was very agitated about the threats made in relation to her and their daughter. Mr. X contacted Mr. Y who arrived at the home to find the defendant persistently pressing the intercom button of the door to gain entrance. Mr. X and some of his employees arrived. Demands for money were made accompanied by threats. Eventually the police were called and the defendant was again arrested (Charge 6).

12. Having been released on bail, the defendant continued to make threats against Mr. X and Mr. Y and their families and threatened Mr. X not to make a witness statement in relation to the incident on the 27 March. On 30 March Mr. X paid the defendant HKD200,000. Mr. X told the police he would not make a witness statement about 27 March incident (Charge 7).

13. During April and May 2009 the demands and threats continued (Charge 8).

14. On 9 June 2009 the defendant again went to the office of Mr. X and demanded money. The defendant threatened Mr. X and produced a knife threatening to kill Mr. X and herself. The defendant cuts her own wrists and the police were called (Charge 9).

15. In October the defendant again arrived at the lobby of Mr. X’s office and makes threats. On 14 October Mr. X paid the defendant HKD5 million via Mr. Y. The defendant signed an agreement (Exhibit P1 in the trial) agreeing to make no further demands against Mr. X in respect of her or their fictional child and agreeing not to disturb Mr. X, his associates and their families. Mr. X said he wanted this agreement to have some evidence in relation to her demands and also to have something to prove payment to any triad person who might come to do him any harm (Charge 10).

16. On 9 November 2010 Mr. Y was in Shenzhen. At 8.30 am as he was about to get into his car he was approached by the defendant and two men who forced him into his car. Whilst in the car the defendant showed him surveillance photographs of Mr. X and another business associate Mr. Z and the family members of Mr. Z. The defendant threatened Mr. Y that if he did not persuade Mr. X to come to Shenzhen, his family would be killed. Mr. Y rang Mr. Z who said he would ring back. The defendant told Mr. Y that she believed he had tipped off Mr. Z and that he was therefore going to be taken to a different place. Mr. Y drove his car whilst his clothing was held by one of the men in the car. Mr. Y saw a fire engine being drive along the road and deliberately drove his car into the car engine writing off his own vehicle. Mr. Y ran to the persons on the fire engine for assistance and subsequently the defendant and the two men with her were detained.

17. Whilst the defendant was in custody on the mainland threatening phone calls were made to Y, his wife and the assistants of Mr. X and Mr. Y. All the messages referred to Mr. X. The message to the wife of Mr. Y threatened that their son would lose his hands.

Record

18. The defendant appeared before the court in 1997 and 1998 for immigration offences.

Mitigation

20. The defendant is a widow and has a 16 year-old daughter who is being educated in England. She was married in 1996 and came to Hong Kong in 2000. He husband died some time ago. I am told that the defendant supports her family and parents through her business which concerns the import and export of parallel goods. No details of any income from that business were forthcoming.

21. Counsel for the defendant has brought to the attention of the court the extensive media coverage of this case and that photographs of her whilst in custody have appeared in the press. The defendant says she is very concerned about the effects this will have on her daughter.

22. Counsel said that the offences must be looked at against a background of a strong and petulant relationship between the defendant and PW1 and said that she had a misguided sense of relationship. I do not accept these submissions.

Sentence

23. In giving the judgment of the English Court of Appeal in R. v. Hadjou, 11 Cr App Rep ( S) 29, Lord Lane CJ said “that in the calendar of criminal offences, blackmail was one of the ugliest and most vicious because it involved what one found so often, attempted murder of the soul. Perhaps because courts always imposed severe sentences for such a crime, one so seldom found a person convicted for the second time of blackmail. Deterrence was perhaps the most important part of the sentence”.

24. In this case, I find that that is precisely what this defendant tried to do, she attempted to murder the soul of Mr. X. Over a period of three years, she wreaked havoc upon PW1 physically, emotionally and mentally. Death threats were made against him, his associates and their families. She caused problems at his office and at the residential address of the wife of PW1. She employed persons to carry out surveillance on them. She let Mr. X and Mr. Y know that she was aware of the movements of them and their children. She told the defendant that she was acting in conjunction with persons on the mainland, persons who would carry out her threats if she failed.

25. In my work as a District Court Judge I have found that it is comparatively rare that I am required to deal with a person whom I would regard as genuinely evil. This is one of those exceptional cases. The defendant in this case is an evil, ruthless, manipulative, calculating and dangerous person.

26. With regard to the first three offences, I impose concurrent sentences of 5 years imprisonment. In committing these offences the defendant obtained HKD4 million from the Mr. X. When Mr. X paid the defendant HKD3 million on 4 June 2008, I am sure he thought this nightmare was at last at an end. He was wrong. The defendant returned in February 2009, this time demanding over HKD100 million. As Mr. X told the court, when he told Mr. Y about the reappearance of the defendant, they felt that the sky had fallen down on them. As regards offences 4 to 6 and 8 to 10, I impose concurrent sentences of 7 years imprisonment. In respect of charge 7, I impose a sentence of 4 years imprisonment concurrent to the other sentences. Unfortunately, in this jurisdiction, my powers are such that I can only impose concurrent sentences in respect of the two sets of offences.

27. The defendant will go to prison for 7 years.