HKSAR v. Sae Wong Ditthakarn Andrew

DCCC 900/2018

[2019] HKDC 395

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 900 OF 2018

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a single charge of criminal intimidation dated 17 July 2018. He is alleged to have threatened persons working at the Tuen Mun Magistrates’ Court with injury.

2.The cases arise out of a dispute the defendant had with a bakery he had been employed by.  The defendant had sent a knife and a note with profanity in it to the bakery and that was as a result of a dispute he had with them.  He was eventually sentenced by a court to a period of imprisonment on 2 July and it appears that as a result of that, he was annoyed when his application to review that sentence was refused and then sent on 17 July a letter which contained a cutter.  He sent a letter that contained a cutter to the Tuen Mun Magistrates’ Court.

3.He was arrested on 25 July.  He admitted he had sent that letter to express his satisfaction.  Various items supporting that were found in his residence and he later admitted that further in a cautioned record of interview and agreed that by that letter he had threatened persons working at the Tuen Mun Magistrates’ Court with injury with an intent to alarm them. 

4.The defendant's antecedents show that when they were compiled he was 26 years old.  I assume he is 27 now.  His last employment was at the bakery where he had the dispute.  He had been laid off by them. Single and living alone, it was said.  He has a related set of convictions.  He was placed on probation in 2015 for criminal damage.  Then a series of criminal intimidation cases, firstly, on 2 July and then later on 12 October.  The offences for which he was convicted on 12 October relate to the same, as it were, victim.

5.Those offences, nine of which were dealt with in that court were part of a total of 11 alleged offences and the last two offences are the ones I am dealing with in this court.  So, for some reason, a decision was made to separate this series of criminal offences and have them sentenced in different courts.  It is somewhat puzzling, really, to wonder why they were bifurcated in this way.  But it does mean I am going to have taken into account the sentence passed in an earlier court for part of this set of offences.

6.But the reason, obviously, why these cases have come to, these two cases, well, what were two cases and now the single case I am dealing with came to this court because they are more serious ones involving a threat to the judicial system and the persons working in the Tuen Mun Magistracy.

7.Dealing with the defendant's personal circumstances, I have obtained probation and for a background probation report and psychological report for him mainly because offences of this nature obviously entail some psychological element.  People thinking rationally do not commit offences like this.  I understand from the psychologist report the defendant has been referred within his detention to the psychologist in respect of interpersonal and mood problems.  But he has been responsive towards treatment and said to be receptive towards advice.

8.The conclusion of this investigation was the defendant is cooperative and forthcoming.  He admits the offences.  He said he felt a sense of injustice for his conviction and sentence for criminal intimidation, mainly because he thought he was owed money by his former employer and thought he had been treated unfairly both by the court and its staff. 

9.That is not a rational assessment because Mr Wong, the defendant, suffers from problems with regulating his emotions, resolving conflict and controlling his impulses.  That has obviously led to these series of offences that he has committed.  He seemed to have deficits in taking perspective and that had led to some aggressive beliefs which were supportive of him making threats. 

10.Some of these problems relate to issues in his childhood.  However, there is some optimism that can be gained from the report.  Firstly, the defendant is responsive to treatment.  He has no other significant psychopathology.  It is said that his assessment for risk of violent reoffending is assessed at this point to be moderate and he has shown satisfactory motivation to treatment and it would be helpful if the Social Services could provide some training, especially for his employment needs in the future.

11.I believe from this I can gain the impression that the defendant has during the course of his current incarceration at least had a period of reflection and is less likely to commit further offences of this nature and the defendant is prepared to take some steps to deal with his problems in relation to temper control and lack of respect.  It is hoped defendant can put this episode behind him and take a more measured approach to the issues that arise in the course of his life.

12.Turning to the question of sentence.  The defendant faces a single charge today of criminal intimidation.  There is no actual tariff for this offence.  Sentences are very much at large because the nature of criminal intimidation can vary widely.  But it is fair to say that the courts have taken very seriously threats against the legal process and against the courts themselves.

13.I have been referred to the case of R v Wong Kwai Nam.  It is a case from the Court of Appeal in 1996, referred to at 376, 448 and 449 Criminal Appeals.  The case in that one is somewhat different from this one where there were threats against a number of people and sentences of up to 3½ years' imprisonment for the criminal intimidation in that case were considered appropriate for that nature of threat.  That involved threats made over quite a period of time to what one would describe as top-ranking civil servants and prominent members of the business community, including members of the Attorney General and judiciary.

14.It can be seen from that that case involved a more extensive series of targets of the criminal intimidation.  In this case, there is no threat to a particular person.  It is said in mitigation that there was no serious intention to intimidate.  I do consider having considered the nature of this threat that it does warrant a sentence of imprisonment and a sentence that should have immediate effect. 

15.The defendant has pleaded guilty and has admitted his involvement in this from an early stage.  So he is entitled to a full one-third discount.  Also, in assessing the starting point for this case I have to bear in mind that the defendant has also been sentenced by another court to at least part of this series of criminal acts and that would have been reflected in the overall total figure determined by the court.  So what I want to avoid is reaching what would be a higher overall total figure as a result of the splitting of the charges between two courts and I am going to resolve that issue as follows.

16.I consider an overall starting point for sentence in this case should be one of 27 months' imprisonment having regard to the severity of the offence.  I propose to deduct from that the sentence of imprisonment that is already served by the defendant.  That leaves a starting point, in fact, of 21 months' imprisonment. 

17.The defendant is entitled to a full one-third discount from that figure, which leads to a final figure of 14 months' imprisonment for this particular offence.