HKSAR v. Khampuanbut La-iat

DCCC 259/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 259 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Defendant has pleaded guilty to 10 charges in total. Charges 1 to 8 involve trafficking in a person to Hong Kong, and Charges 9 and 10 involve keeping a vice establishment.

2.Despite the number of charges, the facts are in fact straightforward.  These offences were uncovered when the police sent undercover officers disguised as customers to two suspected vice establishments.  The date of this operation was 28 January 2016, and the first vice establishment was in Shau Kei Wan and the second in Yuen Long.  The police found in those premises prostitutes, all of Thai nationality.  Later on the same day, both vice establishments were raided and ultimately the 1st defendant arrested.  

3.The defendant admits that she rented the premises as a tenant and ran them as vice establishments.  The premises in Shau Kei Wan had four rooms, and the premises in Yuen Long had two rooms.  All the prostitutes in both premises came to Hong Kong from Thailand, willing to work as prostitutes. 

4.The first eight charges involve four Thai nationals.  One has been to Hong Kong twice to work as a prostitute as arranged or organised by the defendant.  One has been on four occasions over a period of about two years.  As for the other two, when discovered on 28 January this year, it was in fact their first visit to Hong Kong to work as prostitutes as arranged by the defendant. 

5.All four ladies were of age ranging from between 22 to 28 years old.  All four had contacted the defendant to arrange what can only be described as a stint in Hong Kong as a prostitute.  They either paid for their own air tickets or the defendant would pay on their behalves.  The defendant would cover all their expenses whilst in Hong Kong such as food and board, but they had to pay commission to the defendant.  It would be a percentage of the fees collected from customers.  All four were here legally in Hong Kong as visitors.

6.There is no evidence of coercion or force on the part of the defendant.  All four had contacted the defendant to ask her to arrange a stint in Hong Kong as prostitutes.  This is not a case of the defendant contacting them to persuade or coerce them to come to Hong Kong to be prostitutes.  I have been told they all say in their statements that they were not confined to the vice establishments when they were here.  They were free to come and go.  They were more than willing participants.

7.The defendant herself is 55 years old and has a clear record in Hong Kong.  That is often not a material fact when the defendant is not a Hong Kong resident.  But in this case, the defendant has been here in Hong Kong, living since 1989.  She came here in that year from Thailand to work as a domestic helper.  I have been told in 1992 she married a Hong Kong resident and obtained the right of abode.  After this marriage, she became a cleaner.  This marriage ended in divorce five years later.  She had no children in this marriage but she does have a daughter from her previous marriage who lives in Thailand, who is now 32 years old.  She herself has a son, making the defendant a grandmother.

8.I have a letter from the defendant’s daughter as well as a letter from an old friend.  Both ask for leniency on behalf of the defendant.  From the defendant’s daughter’s letter, clearly, they are a close family.  Not only does she financially support her daughter, she financially supports her siblings.  Those include two brothers.  Both brothers have not been able to earn their own living because they both suffer from a hereditary kidney disease.  Sadly, one had died last year from this illness.  The second, her other brother is in Thailand, and the defendant pays for his medical bills.

9.It has been explained to me how the defendant committed these offences.  The defendant in 2013 met a Thai lady who ran a vice establishment, and the defendant worked for her as a cleaner.  This Thai lady in 2014 decided to retire and return to Thailand.  The defendant took over this business and vice establishment from this Thai national.  This woman gave the defendant’s contact details to women in Thailand who wanted to come here to work as prostitutes.  As I have said, they did contact the defendant who facilitated it and in return took commission.

10.There are no tariffs for the offence of trafficking in a person to Hong Kong.  Sentences imposed will depend on the facts of each case.  The prosecution have helpfully given me some authorities to consider.  What is clear from those authorities is that a term of imprisonment is inevitable but that any starting point does depend on the facts of each case and the mitigation put forward. 

11.I have already highlighted relevant factors. Those include the defendant’s plea, previous clear record in Hong Kong and mitigation put forward.  It is relevant that all four prostitutes were willing and in fact wanted to come to Hong Kong to earn money.  All four women were legally here in Hong Kong, not smuggled into Hong Kong as illegal immigrants.  The defendant facilitated their time in Hong Kong but was paid for it by these women.  There was no serious or obvious exploitation of these women by the defendant.  They came into Hong Kong with eyes wide open.  This is not the most serious case for an offence of this nature.  In fact, it is at the lowest end of the scale.

12.Defendant, please stand up.  I intend to, having considered all of those factors, take for Charges 1 to 8 a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment.  I intend to take for Charge 9 a starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment.  It is relevant that vice establishment was run for a period of over two years.  I intend to for Charge 10 take a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment on the evidence that vice establishment was only run for a short period of time. 

13.The defendant has pleaded guilty to all those charges.  She is entitled to a discount of one-third.  After that discount is applied to those starting points, for Charges 1 to 8, for every charge, the defendant is sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment.  For Charge 9, defendant is sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment.  For Charge 10, the defendant is sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment.

14.I take into account the totality principle. Almost all the offences were committed in late 2015 and early 2016.  Also the reality is the defendant had to keep vice establishments in order to facilitate the prostitution of these women.  The defendant had to have premises to offer these women as well as customers.  Charges 9 and 10 go hand in hand with Charges 1 to 8.

15.I order that Charges 1 to 8 be served concurrently.  I order 2 months of Charge 9 to be served consecutively to Charge 1 and the balance concurrently.  I order that Charge 10 be served concurrently to Charge 1.  Therefore, defendant is sentenced to a total of 18 months’ imprisonment.  Do you understand that sentence?

DEFENDANT: Understood.