Chan Tak v. The Queen
|
CACC000201/1979 Sentence - blackmail - series of demands for small amounts from one victim - five years' imprisonment reduced to three and a half years' imprisonment.
----------------- Coram: Roberts, C.J., Huggins, J.A. and Leonard, J. Date of Judgment: 30 August 1979 ----------------- JUDGMENT ---------------- Huggins, J.A.: 1. The Appellant seeks leave to appeal against sentences totalling five years' imprisonment upon seven charges of blackmail which were concurrent with ten sentences of two years' imprisonment for theft. 2. The victim in this case was a member of a transportation company. The Appellant in 1975 went to him and threatened that there would be trouble if sums of money were not paid to him on a regular basis. The demand was in the region of $50 a day though, in fact, something like $30 a day was paid. No further threat was made but the demand was altered after some time to a lump sum per month in the region of $700, and payments of this amount continued over a period of three years. It is significant that at no time was any report made by the victim. The police in some way discovered what was going on and this prosecution resulted. 3. Mr. Duncan, on behalf of the Crown, concedes that the sentences were severe, but submits that in all the circumstances they were not excessive. Mr. Stevenson has cited a number of cases which do tend to show that a maximum of about three and a half years' imprisonment has been imposed for certain types of blackmail but most of them were isolated cases - a single demand for a single sum of money. Mr. Duncan rightly emphasizes that these cases are prevalent in Hong Kong, and he might also have added that they are very difficult to stop. The police are dependent upon the public for reporting such cases and this is important in the present case because, had a report been made at any time during the three years, many of these offences charged might never have been committed: the victim was submitting to the blackmail over a long period. It is true, of course, that only one threat was made, but it was a continuing threat and the victim was fearful that his barges would be damaged if the payments were not made. 4. Taking everything into consideration we think that five years' imprisonment was more than was justified for these particular offences. We allow the appeal. We substitute sentences of three and a half years' imprisonment in respect of the seven charges of blackmail. The sentences in respect of the thefts remain unaltered, but we activate the suspended sentence which was passed in 1977 and this will, of course, be consecutive. 30th August, 1979. |