R. v. Kwok Yuk Ho

CACC000015/1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996 No. 15
(Criminal)

____________

____________

Coram: Hon. Power, V.-P., Liu and Mayo, JJ.A. in Court

Date of Hearing: 5 June 1996

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 5 June 1996

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1. The Applicant stood charged with 11 counts in the High Court. He was found guilty on his own pleas and he was sentenced, in effect, to 10 years' imprisonment each for the first 10 charges and 6 years' imprisonment for the 11th count. The sentences for the first 10 counts were ordered to run concurrently. Of the 6 years given him, 4 years were ordered by the Judge to run consecutively. In total, he is to serve a term of 14 years.

2. The first 10 charges involved the Applicant's contaminating drinks in cartons displayed for public consumption by purchase. He injected a drug into the liquid contained in the carton, waited for a victim to acquire it and upon the victim becoming under the influence of the drug, he took advantage of the person and relieved money, valuables and property of the victim.

3. The modus operandi of his offences was similar and that formed the subject-matters of the first 10 counts. The first offence took place on 19 July 1994, the second 12 August 1994, the third 27 August 1994, the fourth 25 October 1994, the sixth 20 December 1994, the seventh 9 February 1995, the eighth 13 February 1995, the ninth 14 February 1995 and the tenth 20 February 1995.

4. The female victim in the last count was taken home by the Applicant. She was drugged and detained there for 3 days and a demand was made by the Applicant from a member of her family. He asked for $300,000.00 for her release. When the victim's condition deteriorated, he left her in a hospital. These are serious offences which drew heavy sentences. He is now being legally represented.

5. The starting point for the first 10 counts was 15 years and he was given a third discount for his guilty pleas. For the last count, the starting point was taken as 8 years and it was similarly reduced to 6, two of which was ordered to run concurrently with the sentences in the first 10 counts. The sentences in the first 10 counts were themselves ordered to run concurrently by the Judge.

6. It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that he was identified only by the victims in counts 3 and 10 and that a watch involved in count 5 might have led to his identification. Other counts in the indictment were included as a result of his co-operation with the police. It is further submitted that he was far from being callous. Some victims were taken home or sent to hospital.

7. The consequential periods of mental block in some cases must have given rise to trauma. The victim could recall little of his/her experience during loss of consciousness or induced incapacity. The public had been alarmed. Evidently, manufacturers and retailers alike were disturbed and their businesses affected. It was not an isolated venture but a deliberate and planned course of conduct practised on a number of unsuspecting victims.

8. The Applicant pleaded guilty and co-operated with the police. Statements were provided to the police. But for his given statements, the majority of the offences may not have come to light. This Court notes all the matters advanced on the Applicant's behalf. The sentences are, no doubt, severe but are nevertheless proper sentences about which the Applicant cannot complain. The application is dismissed.

9. In all the circumstances, his application for leave to appeal against sentence must be dismissed. We so dismiss it.

Representation:

Mr. J. Mullick, instructed by the Director of Legal Aid for the Appellant

Mr. A.A. Bruce Q.C. and Mr. Edmond Lee, Crown Prosecutor for the Respondent