HKSAR v. LAM KWOK CHUEN

DCCC1374/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1374 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you pleaded guilty to one offence of false imprisonment, contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 101I of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap.221, and not guilty to one offence of blackmail, contrary to section 23(1) and (3) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210.

2.  You admitted the brief facts and I convicted you on Charge 1.

3.  In respect of Charge 2, that was ordered to be left on file and not to be proceeded with without leave of this court or the Court of Appeal.   

4.  Briefly the facts are as follows.  PW1, aged 20, lived at Cheung Wang Estate in Tsing Yi with his parents.  On 9 November 2010, he and friends went to gamble in Macau.  They gambled separately in the casino.

5.  At about 8 pm, two persons who claimed to be members of staff of Wah Do Casino invited him to join the membership at a discounted price.  PW1 agreed and went to Wah Do alone with the two members of staff.

6.  There he filled out an application form and provided his address and a copy of his ID card.  He was loaned a mud chip for $10,000 and staff placed bets for him.

7.  After a while he was told he had won $37,000.  He was then taken to a room to consume alcohol.  Later he invited back to the casino, where the staff continued to place bets for him.       

8.  He was then told he had lost $130,000 and signed an IOU for that amount.  At 6 am on 10 November 2010, he returned to Hong Kong.  At the Macau Ferry Terminal, two males, WP1 and WP2, intercepted him and asked him to settle the gambling debt. 

9.  He was not allowed to leave until the debt had been settled.  They threatened to harm his family if he tried to escape, so he was forced to stay with them. 

10.  PW1 told WP1 and WP2 that he was a member of a finance company known as Promise (Hong Kong) Company Limited.  In the afternoon of that day he escorted WP1 and WP2 to a branch of the said finance company in Mongkok.

11.  A loan of $50,000 was approved.  The loan money was deposited into PW1’s account at Standard Chartered Bank.  This money was withdrawn and handed over to the wanted persons.

12.  PW1 was then escorted to different places on that day and told to raise more money to settle the debt.  During the period he was forced to sign two IOUs for $180,000 each.

13.  At about 8 pm on that same day, PW1 was escorted to his home to ask for money from his mother.  One of the wanted persons said he had damaged a cargo container and therefore he had to pay $180,000 compensation.  His mother said she had no money, so PW1 left with WP1 and WP2.

14.  At about 9 pm that same day, a male called PW1’s father and demanded compensation of $180,000, saying that PW1 had damaged a cargo container.  His father did not give them any money. 

15.  Later that day, WP1 left and you joined.  You instructed PW1 to follow them or you would harm PW1’s family.  You took PW1 to a sauna parlour to spend the night.

16.  On 11 November, the next day, you and WP2 continued to escort PW1 to different places.  PW1 phoned his parents and friends for money.  You again all spent the night at another sauna parlour.  Again you threatened PW1 if he escaped his family would be in trouble.

17.  On the morning of 12 November 2010, PW1’s mother received a number of calls asking her to repay the debt for her son.  She said she had no money.  On that day PW1 was brought to an amusement centre and a park in Tsuen Wan.  At about 5 pm that day, a further male (WP3) joined in. PW1 was taken to his home.  WP3 pressed the door bell whilst you and WP2 waited in the corridor.

18.  His mother answered the door and was told that PW1 was escorted back home for debt collection.  She said she had no money.  WP3 then said since no payment could be made, PW1 would be brought back to Macau, and she was told to pack some clothing.  At this juncture, PW1's mother grabbed his arm to stop WP3 from taking PW1 away and at the same time called the police.  You and WP2 came to assist WP3.  However, as the police had been called, you all left the scene. 

19.  About 3 hours later, you came to PW1’s house again and gave a contact number for your “Big Brother”.  The matter was reported to police for a second time.

20.  At about 9 pm on that day, PW1’s father received a call from a male who requested him to repay the gambling debt of $180,000.  He said he could only pay $20,000 and was informed that someone would come to collect it.  The balance was to be collected by instalments. 

21.  At about 9.40 pm on that day, you came to PW1’s home to collect the money and you were arrested by the police.  Under caution, you admitted you were employed to collect a debt and you would not release PW1 until the debt was collected.      

22.  You admitted to six previous convictions on four previous occasions, none of which were similar.

23.  Mr Davies on your behalf entered mitigation.  He submitted that you were not the leader, you came into the matter at a relatively later stage and used no violence, though you did make threats. 

24.  Your role was essentially to escort PW1 from place to place.  He told me that since your release from prison you had been unable to find work and you were desperate for a job. In fact, you had derived no financial benefit from this offence. 

25.  Turning to your record, he said the most serious offences occurred in 2009.  I was told that you are remorseful and, of course, your plea of guilty had saved court time and witness time. 

26.  Mr Davies submitted that a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment was appropriate in the present case and produced two authorities to support that.  

27.  The first was HKSAR v So Tam Fat and Another, CACC183/1999.  The second was HKSAR v Au Wing Yat, that is Magistracy Appeal No. 891/2004.  The latter was a blackmail offence. 

28.  The prosecution in reply produced the case of HKSAR v Lim Hay Bun Benny, CACC213/1999.  In that case a starting point of 4 years was approved by the Court of Appeal.

29.  In reply, Mr Davies made the point that in the authority produced by the prosecution the defendant was found to be the ringleader and that case involved blackmail in addition to false imprisonment.

30.  I turn now to the sentence. 

31.  This offence is serious and it is unpleasant.  I accept that you came late into the scheme.  I accept that you used no actual violence but you did threaten on at least two occasions. 

32.  The total length of the false imprisonment was approximately 2½ days though I do accept that you were not there for the whole of that period.  The purpose was to extort $180,000, which is a considerable sum.

33.  Taking all factors into account, in my opinion the level of criminality that attaches to you falls somewhere between the two authorities.  By that I mean the single authority produced by the prosecution and the two authorities produced by Mr Davies. 

34.  Whilst not sentencing on the basis of your record, I do note that you have an undistinguished record, though I do accept that this is the first time you have committed this type of offence. 

35.  Taking all factors into account, I take a starting point of 33 months, that is 2 years and 9 months.  For your plea of guilty, you are entitled to and do receive a one-third discount.  Therefore, you will go to prison for 22 months.