COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court to two counts of forcible detention of a person with intent to procure a ransom for her liberation, contrary to section 42 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212.
The defendant was committed for sentence on 3 July 2023 and today confirms his pleas as well as his agreement to the Summary of Facts.
The Facts
On 8 December 2021, the defendant, together with a person wanted by the police, by force, detained in Charge 1 a Filipina national against her will and in Charge 2 a 20-month-old baby girl with intent to procure a ransom for the liberation of both these victims.
The first victim was a foreign domestic helper employed in Hong Kong by the parents of the second victim. On the material day, she was taking the baby girl under her care to school. She was walking from home in Pokfulam to the nursery. As she walked along Victoria Road, she walked past a black seven-seater vehicle parked by the side of the road. The first victim was suddenly grabbed by the defendant around her waist. He also covered her mouth with one hand and dragged her into the vehicle through the open sliding door, overpowering her.
The defendant tied up her limbs with zip ties and put a hood over her head. She was pressed to the ground and prevented from standing. When she eventually pushed the hood up, she saw she was in the back seat or back row of the seven-seater vehicle whilst the defendant was sat in the middle row with the baby girl still in her stroller inside the vehicle. The vehicle drove away. And there was another man driving, the wanted suspect, who spoke to her in English. He told her they were robbers and she would have to cooperate. She was asked for the name and telephone number of her employer.
This male also asked her about her employer’s company. The first victim told him that her employer was not rich. That male nevertheless offered to pay her 5 per cent if she cooperated. He mentioned the figure 200 million in English. This must have been a reference to a ransom to be demanded. The defendant put the hood back over this first victim’s head after this conversation. She could not see where they went, but after a while they stopped and she was led inside a container.
Inside this container, she was untied and told to change into some clothes she was given by the defendant. After she changed into those clothes, she was tied up again with zip ties at her wrists and ankles with her hands tied behind her back. Then the child was brought into the same container and put on her thighs. Both victims were tied together with a rope. The first victim was hooded again. She was told in English there would be a two-hour wait. She and the child were then left alone inside this container.
Sometime later, the defendant and the other man returned and lifted up the two victims and moved them back into the same vehicle. They were both placed in the rear compartment. The first victim could see that the baby girl’s hands were tied together with zip ties.
They arrived at another location and were lifted out of the vehicle and walked to a second container. The police found this container at a later stage. It was in Tai Wo Village, Pat Heung, Yuen Long. Both victims were again tied together on the floor of this second container. Both men left them in the container and closed the door.
The first victim managed to untie her hands, remove the hood over her head, take off the tape covering her mouth and untie her legs. She took the child and left the container. She herself climbed on top of the container and shouted for help. The defendant suddenly appeared and climbed up but was pushed off by this first victim after a struggle. Villagers appeared and defendant ran away. The villagers helped the two victims and the police were called.
Both the victims were taken to hospital. For the first victim, she had marks on her wrists and feet from being zip tied. She had redness over the right side of her face as well as an abrasion. The child had zip tie marks on her hands and wrists. Both were released from hospital that same day. I have been told today they have no psychological or physical long-term trauma.
During this incident, the first victim’s employers, the parents of the second victim, had not received any phone calls demanding any ransom for their release, neither knew the defendant personally.
That seven-seater vehicle was traced by the police on various CCTV cameras and from the time of the kidnapping to the time the police were called, the vehicle registration number plate had been changed three times. Clearly, a plan to evade detection.
The defendant himself was arrested in the early hours of the morning, the day after the kidnapping when he was returning the seven-seater vehicle to its owner. The police had already traced that vehicle and were waiting for the defendant.
Mitigation
Mr Yeung has provided me with written mitigation in advance. He has said all he can say on behalf of the defendant. The defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty. He is a 45-year-old man with three previous convictions between 2001 and 2022. All convictions resulted in financial penalties. I have heard he is married with a child himself who is now nearly four years old. I have seen a letter from his mother expressing her shock at the commission of these offences but asking for mercy and leniency.
At the time of his arrest, he was unemployed. I have been told he was in financial difficulty which led to the commission of these offences. He owed the wanted man some money, adding up to about $40,000. This wanted man, Eric, the defendant believed was a debt collector.
He asked the defendant to help him abduct someone in return for writing off his debt. The defendant assumed that the abduction was related to debt collection. He thought the first victim, the foreign domestic helper, was a debtor when he bundled her into the vehicle and tied her up. Only after they set off did he realise that Eric was referring to a ransom when he asked the first victim for the contact details of her employer. Even if this is true, it makes little difference to the defendant’s culpability.
Sentencing
This offence, forcible detention of a person with intent to demand a ransom, is a very serious offence. It is an offence punishable by life imprisonment. There are no guideline tariffs nor has the Court of Appeal attempted to lay down guideline tariffs for this kind of crime. Sentences will be fact specific. The circumstances of each case will be looked at individually.
The Court of Appeal in previous cases has pointed out a number of factors relevant to sentence, which include thorough planning in advance, the number of people involved in the detention, the targeted person’s age, gender, personal situation, whether the offenders were armed at the time, whether the victims were injured or distressed, how long the victim or victims were detained, treated and released, and lastly whether a ransom was paid.
Mr Yeung, for the defendant, has cited examples of sentences that range from a starting point of 10 years and 8 months after trial to 14 years. In HKSAR v Yuk Man Chun and Another, CACC 420/2007, after trial, two kidnappers were sentenced to 10 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. In that case, the victim was a 22-year-old son of a wealthy businessman.
In HKSAR v Mohammad Nadim [2010] 1 HKC 281, the Court of Appeal found a 14-year starting point appropriate for the kidnapping for a seven-year-old boy who was blindfolded and his mouth taped up and his hands tied up and was at the end put in a bag in the boot of a vehicle. No weapons or violence were used at the time of the forcible detention and he was detained for about 15 hours.
Prosecution has also referred me to several cases which show a range of sentences and also reiterates that there are no guideline tariffs for this kind of offence. For example, in HKSAR v Chang Sai Wah Brandi, CACC 342/2008, a 14-year sentence after trial was upheld for the forcible detention of a 73-year-old doctor who was detained. There had been an attempt to tie him up and put him in a box. He had struggled fiercely and somehow managed to fight off three men.
In HKSAR v Leung Man Kwong, CACC 57/2001, a seven-year-old boy was snatched from a vehicle driven by his family’s driver by three armed and masked men who blocked their vehicle. The three men carried what looked like pistols and one held a hammer. He was taken and later found by the police stuffed inside a suitcase. He had been blindfolded but had no other signs of injuries. The Court of Appeal upheld a starting point of 15 years’ imprisonment.
Sentences in these cases I have been referred to have been decided on the circumstances and facts of each individual case. What is relevant here in this case in particular is the fact that the second victim was only 20 months old when her stroller was grabbed and put in the vehicle before being driven away. She does not appear to have ever been safely strapped into a car seat or a seatbelt.
Although no weapons were brandished or specific violence used when the first victim was forced into the vehicle and the child stroller picked up and put in it, the first victim was tied up and hooded whilst struggling in front of the child. The child was sat in her stroller confronted by two strange men and her carer in distress.
At one stage, when the first victim was taken into the first container, she was separated from this child. This child had her hands tied together with cable ties for some inexplicable reason. She must have been very frightened at that time. She was then tied to her carer who she could not even see to comfort her because her carer had a hood over her head. The first victim could not talk to the child or comfort her because she had her mouth taped up.
The first victim was very brave when she managed to free herself, take the child out of the second container and climb up the container herself to find help. She even managed to fight off the defendant who climbed up to get her. Her actions meant that their ordeal did not last long, but if she had not acted so courageously, the outcome may have been very different. It is only because of her bravery that the police became involved within hours of them being snatched off the road.
Another relevant factor is that there was clearly much planning involved in these offences. The defendant was seen buying the zip ties used to tie up the victims three days earlier. In his phone were many messages showing prior preparation of some of the false vehicle license plates used that day. The vehicle used was also borrowed, so it could not be traced directly to the defendant or his accomplice. They had obviously scouted out two separate containers to hide the victims inside.
Having considered what I heard in mitigation and those particular facts I have identified as relevant to this ordeal suffered by both victims, I find a starting point of 14 years’ imprisonment for each offence appropriate.
The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity means he will benefit from a discount of one-third from that starting point. After that discount is applied, the sentences are reduced to 9 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
The defendant is sentenced to 9 years and 4 months’ imprisonment for both counts, Count 1 and Count 2. I order both sentences to be served concurrently.
Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to a total of 9 years and 4 months.