HKSAR v. YAU CHUN MAN

DCCC840/2008

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 840 OF 2008

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  There are two defendants before me, D1, Yau Chun-man, and D2, Chan Chung-wai.  D1 and D2 now stand convicted after trial of one count of false imprisonment, the 1st charge.

2.  The victim in this case, PW1, went to Macau to gamble and lost money in gambling.  He borrowed $50,000 from people in the casino and was asked to repay an amount of $80,000.  PW1 was detained in Macau and was escorted back to Hong Kong by a male designated as “D” at trial.  PW1 was then handed over to D1 and another male designated as “E” at trial in Hong Kong.

3.  The victim was then escorted back to the residence of his mother to verify the address provided by PW1.  In fact, back in Macau, PW1 had provided the personal details of his family members and his own to the lending party, and his mobile phone was taken away from him.  When he arrived in Hong Kong, PW1 provided his personal details to the escorts again.  After the brief visit to PW1’s mother’s address at Lung Mun Oasis, PW1 was taken to a villa in Tsuen Wan where he spent the night with D1 in a room.

4.  Over the night, there were numerous telephone calls to the mother of PW1, and there were negotiations over the repayment of money.  PW2, the mother of PW1, made a report to the police at 3 am in the morning.  In the morning on 18 August, PW1 was escorted to Lung Mun Oasis again by D1 and D2.  D2 joined PW1 and D1 in the morning on 18 August.  They boarded a taxi, and they travelled to Lung Mun Oasis together.

5.  PW1 was told to go up to the flat and get the money from PW2 alone.  He was warned not to play tricks or else there would be serious consequences.  There were police officers waiting for PW1 at PW2’s flat.  They inquired from PW1 as to what had happened, and PW1 took the police officers down to look for the escorts.  D1 and D2 were arrested by the police officers after PW1 pointed out to the police they were the persons who were with him earlier on.

6.  I have before me the criminal records of D1 and D2 and the antecedent statements.  D1 is now 37 years old.  He was locally born.  He has numerous convictions, including attempted burglary, burglary, common assault, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, loitering, being a member of a triad society.  His criminal activities dated back to 1986.  According to the criminal records, he had been to detention centre, training centre.  He had been fined by the court, and he had been sent to prison.  He received education up to primary level.  He is a decoration worker.

7.  For D2, he is also aged 37, locally born.  He has criminal records, including theft, possession of offensive weapon in a public place, burglary, criminal damage, being carried in a conveyance without authority, driving without a licence, taking conveyance without authority, handling stolen goods, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and other convictions.  He received education up to lower secondary level.  He is unemployed.  His criminal activities dated back to 1989.  He had been placed under probation order and sentenced to training centre.  He had also been sentenced to prison.  His last conviction was in year 2006.  He was sentenced to three years and nine months in a case of burglary.

8.  I have listened carefully to the mitigation advanced on D1 and D2’s behalf by Mr So.  Mr So submitted that no actual violence was used by the defendants on PW1.  My short answer to the submission is that, had violence been used on the victims, a much heavier sentence would be considered by the court.  The fact remains that the victim was detained against his will by the defendants who acted jointly.  There is evidence that the offence in question was a syndicated crime with cross-border dimension.

9.  Mr So accepts realistically that D1 and D2 would be imprisoned for the offence of false imprisonment, and he asked me to be as lenient as possible.

10.  On the facts before me, I take two years’ imprisonment as the starting point on Charge 1.  The 1st and 2nd defendants both pleaded not guilty to the charge, and they were convicted after a full trial.  Both of them have appalling criminal records.  I can find no mitigating factor which can enable me to reduce the sentence from the starting point of two years.

11.  For the reasons given, on the 1st charge, I sentence D1 and D2 each to two years’ imprisonment.  The terms are to be served immediately.