R. v. TSOI SAN CHUN

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 797
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Mayo, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him for four counts of blackmail of three years' imprisonment.

2. It was an all too familiar case of triad extortion of so-called protection money.

3. The victim Madam Lau became the proprietress of a restaurant business in Tsuen Wan in September 1994. Almost immediately after the restaurant opened she was approached by D5 in the proceedings below. He demanded $10,000. She resisted the demand and the applicant was one of a group of men who attended with D5 and made further demands upon Madam Lau. Also some minor damage was caused to her property but there was no direct evidence connecting the applicant with this. Eventually Madam Lau reported the matter to the police and appropriate action was taken.

4. Initially the applicant pleaded not guilty. However after a cautioned statement made by him was admitted as evidence he changed his plea.

5. Chua DJ adopted a starting point of three-and-a-half years and taking into account the plea reduced this to three years.

6. Mr Poll, who appears for the applicant has urged upon us the applicant's previous good character and the fact that he personally had not been responsible for criminal damage which occurred. He also referred to the fact that no actual physical violence had been resorted to. Perhaps most important of all the applicant had received an insufficient discount for his guilty plea albeit that it had been entered at a very late stage.

7. We have said repeatedly that substantial discounts should be given for guilty pleas even where the case against the defendant is a strong one and even though it may come at a late stage. The reason for this is that unless such discount are forthcoming there is little incentive for defendants to plead guilty.

8. Notwithstanding the submissions of Mr Poll we do not consider that the starting point of three-and-a-half years' imprisonment was excessive.

9. On the contrary the sentence was very much on the low side. In our view the proper starting point should have been between four and five years. Although we are of the opinion that the discount could have been more generous we are not prepared to interfere with the overall result. Accordingly the application is dismissed.