HKSAR v. Ng Yam Fung

DCCC 706/2021 & 417/2022

(Consolidated)

[2024] HKDC 239

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 706 OF 2021 AND 417 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.Today, D5 is to be sentenced for his plea to Charge 2/‌Blackmail and Charge 4/‌False imprisonment; his Charge 3/‌Theft to remain in the court file.

2.Earlier, D5 and D9 gave evidence for the prosecution in the trial of D7 and D8. Their evidence was credible and useful. The facts of the case and the course of the trial have been published in earlier reports. I need not go into them again.

3.Suffice to say, D7 and D8 recruited D9 to execute their blackmail/false imprisonment plot leading to Charges 2-5. D9 in turn recruited D5, who recruited some others including D1-D4; the last four participated in Charge 4 only.

4.D7 and D8 were the masterminds; D9 was a first-level recruiter; D5 second-level.

5.In D9’s case, I adopted 39 months’ imprisonment as the starting point for each of his Charge 2 and Charge 4. He was given a 45% discount.

6.D5 and D9 were more or less the same culpable but D5 was a lot younger. He was not yet 15 in 2020 and was apparently following D9 then; he would call D9 ‘Tai Lo’. If I were to send D5 to prison. I would adopt a lower starting point of 36 months’ imprisonment for each of his Charge 2 and Charge 4.

7.D5 was the first one to offer assistance to the prosecution, leading to D9’s following suit. And there is other mitigation advanced on his behalf, which the prosecution accept. D5 should be entitled to a 60% discount.

8.The sentences for Charge 2 and Charge 4 should run concurrently. On such consideration, D5 would receive a resultant sentence of 21.5 months’ imprisonment if he were to be sent to prison. And if he were of good behavior there, he could be released after a little more than 14 months’ custody.

9.D5 was arrested in early October 2020. Since then, he had been in custody for about 12 months before being granted bail. And before sentence, D5 was further remanded for about three weeks for a CSD report to ascertain whether he was suitable for admission to any institution.

10.The CSD reports say D5 is fit to be detained in Detention Centre. Yet, reliable information reveals he has actually reformed himself significantly over the years. I thus ask the Probation Officer to prepare a report for D5 to see if I should put him on probation instead in the circumstances.

11.The Probation Officer confirms D5’s reformation. He is even of the view that probation might not be necessary in D5’s current state. In any event, he metes out a probation suggestion of 12 months’ duration if this court is minded to put D5 on probation.

12.D5 is now 18 and has no previous record. He certainly committed some serious offences in the present case. That was in 2020 when he was not yet 15. He had been detained for a considerable period and it was punishment to quite some extent. Since release on bail, D5 has endeavoured to reform himself. It is realistically hopeful that he can turn a new leaf with continuing effort, uninterrupted and under proper supervision.

13.Taking everything as said into consideration, I conclude the best course to deal with D5 now is to put him on probation for 12 months on such terms as suggested by the Probation Officer. D5 agrees to abide. I thus make that order for his plea to Charge 2 and Charge 4.