HKSAR v. Yeung Lap Wai

DCCC 801/2019

[2021] HKDC 359

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 801 OF 2019

________________________

________________________

________________________

Reasons for Sentence

________________________

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a total of 11 separate offences of criminal damage. The offences were committed on 6 May 2019 and 15 May 2019 in separate locations across the New Territories, Hong Kong.

2.The offences involved was described as spraying dunning words with paint at the lift lobbies or corridors of 11 different locations.  The details of the locations are set out of the Summary of Facts. I do not propose to go through them in any great detail because the facts are very similar in each case and the gravity of the offence rather lies in the repetition of this activity. 

3.The first offence occurred at Yat King House at Lai King Estate in Kwai Chung where red Chinese dunning words were written on the wall on the lift lobby of the 4th Floor and a note was left in the iron grille of a person’s home there.  Defendant was actually seen on the CCTV recording and so the practice in each of these offences was the defendant to spray these dunning words on the wall and sometimes to leave a note for the person who owed the debt to settle it.  Defendant engaged in some kind of debt collecting at the time. 

4.The second offence occurred in Kwai Kin House in Kwai Chung, and then the third to fifth offences were committed in the Lei Muk Shue Estate in Kwai Chung, a similar activity took place.  The sixth offence occurred also in the Lei Muk Shue Estate in Kwai Chung and the seventh and eighth offences were committed in Shek Lin House at the Shek Wai Kok Estate in Kwai Chung. 

5.There was a gap then until the thirteenth offence, which was committed in Yau Tong in Kowloon at Lei Sang House at the Lei Yue Mun Estate.  The fourteenth offence was committed at Ko Lun House at Ko Cheung Court in Yau Tong and the final offence at Chak Mei House, Yau Mei Court in Yau Tong in Kowloon. 

6.The defendant was arrested on 15 May 2019 and under caution, he stated that he helped others to collect debts.  He received $300 each time.  On the day that he was arrested, he went to the locations of Charges 13 to 15 to spray dunning words at the lobbies. 

7.In video-recorded interviews, the defendant gave further details of the offences he committed.  He said he had been working for a company called Winning to collect debts since March 2019.  He received $300 for each visit to a debtor and would receive 30 per cent of the debts collected by him.  His method of debt collecting was by knocking on the doors, spraying dunning words as well as the room numbers of the debtors at the lobbies.  In relation to the Charges 13 and 15, he put dunning notes into mailboxes for the debtors, sprayed dunning words, and then took photos and sent the photos to Winning. 

8.He admitted that on 6 May he had sprayed dunning words and acted in a similar way at locations 1 to 8, which are Charges 1 to 8 in this case.  Red paint spray cans were found upon him.  Dunning notes were found in plastic bags carried by the defendant and there was a connection to his mobile phone with this company Winning Wealth Management Limited. 

9.The defendant admits in the facts that he without lawful excuse damaged by spraying dunning words with paints to lift lobbies or corridors of locations 1 to 8 and 13 to 15, which formed the Charges 1 to 8 and 13 to 15, intending such damage and being reckless to whether such property could be damaged. 

10.Defendant himself is aged 26 at the time that the antecedents statement was taken, educated up to Form 1 at a secondary school in Hong Kong.  He details his work as working in a construction site.  He spent some time in custody after his arrest for this offence. 

11.As far as his criminal background is concerned, he has a similar offence in 2007, criminal damage and was placed on probation for 15 months.  He obviously breached that probation which was extended to 21 months eventually with the defendant going to Tuen Mun Children and Juvenile Home. 

12.At 2012, he has committed an offence of claiming to be a member of a triad society, which he is placed on probation.  The defendant had not committed any offence for some seven years when he came to commit these offences. 

13.Comprehensive mitigations were offered by way of mitigation submission.  It sets out in a bit more detail the background and history of the defendant.  He is described as coming from a grassroots family.  There is a certificate, a good citizen award, that related to when he was 8 years old when he assisted in arresting a robber. 

14.The criminal damage offence, I am told, relates to the damaging of a rubbish bin in school.  So it was not a serious offence because he was only placed on probation for that. 

15.Eventually in 2012, he came under the influence of what we call bad peers and the defendant claimed to be a member of a triad society. Again, sentenced to probation which he successfully completed after its extension.

16.Defendant, I am told, has provided financial assistance for his family, worked hard in an industry that required physical effort rather than mental application.  He has been involved in construction, reinforcing, and fixing industries. 

17.The defendant is now married.  At the time of the offence, the lady who is his current wife was his girlfriend and was pregnant.  I am told now there is a child of that relationship who is some 18 months old.  The defendant’s father, also at the time of the offence was diagnosed with a serious form of cancer, which involved the family in heavy medical expenses. 

18.The defendant’s income from work at the construction site is understandably unstable and his mitigation says he went on then to work for this financial company as a debt collector and we can see it would have been more profitable because he would receive a percentage of any debts he recovered. 

19.However, the defendant obviously pursued his debt collector career by involving himself in serious criminality, threatening people’s homes, bringing the attention of their neighbours to their debts through writing things in lift lobbies and on walls.  It is a thoroughly disreputable behaviour with the outrageous threats he made against people. 

20.The matters that the court is asked to consider by way of mitigation is that the -- although the offences involve damage to property, they did not involve any threats of actual violence.  All that the dunning words do is point out the person in the flat was in debt, so it did not involve violence or threats.  Of course, it is a great intrusion into their own personal privacy.  The damage to the property was limited to spraying words on walls and floors.  And the defendant acted alone and most of the offences as can be seen from the CCTV recordings occurred during daytime. 

21.In final, mitigating factors of the defendant, he pleaded guilty at an early stage.  He admitted the offences on arrest.  He showed remorse to save the court’s time.  He is of course entitled to the full one-third discount for any sentence imposed. 

22.The defendant, I am told, is still the sole breadwinner of his family.  His wife and child will be dependent on him.  Any sentence of imprisonment will of course lead to the defendant losing the sight of his own young child for a period of time.  I am also asked to consider that although there are 11 charges here, they were committed only on two separate days and that is to be reflected in the totality of the sentences imposed upon the defendant. 

23.Finally, the court’s approach to sentence. There is no tariff sentence for these forms of offences.  There are some similar offences in this court where sentence of imprisonment where starting points of sentence range up to 12 months’ imprisonment and beyond.  In determining the sentence of imprisonment for this offence, I bear in mind the damage inflicted, what must be the worry and fear imposed on the 11-odd families whose personal debts were exposed in this way to their friends and neighbours and the fear that must have been engendered by that activity.  I also have to bear in mind the multiplicity and repetition of those offences, not just on one day but on two separate days and in a number of separate locations inside Kwai Chung and Yau Tong. 

24.I shall firstly determine the starting point for sentence.  For each of these offences, it would be appeared to be the same starting point, the sentence should be adopted in respect of each of these and that starting point should reflect the series of offences and the multiplicity of the offences incurred.  For each offence, I will take a starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to 10 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty.  So on Charges 1 to 8, and 13 to 15, it will be a sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment on each. 

25.I must now determine the overall totality of sentence.  Having regard to the fact that the cases occurred on two separate days in a number of different locations, I have determined that a total overall starting point for sentence should be one of 30 months’ imprisonment, reduced to 20 months’ imprisonment to reflect the defendant’s pleas of guilty.  I shall achieve that sentence by ordering the first eight offences to be served concurrently to each other and the thirteenth to fifteenth offences, the charges to serve concurrently to each other but consecutively to those on the first eight offences.  That means a total sentence of imprisonment for 20 months’ imprisonment for this series of offences.