HKSAR v. C.M.W.

DCCC 1058/2025

[2025] HKDC 2059

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1058 OF 2025

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The Prosecution applied for an Anonymity Order relating to the name of the Defendant because she was Victim X in DCCC 804/2023. Leave was granted. The Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice and was convicted accordingly.

Brief Facts

2.This case related to another criminal trial in DCCC 804/2023 wherein D1 Chan, D2 Tang, D3 Tai and D4 Wong, were jointly charged with one count of blackmail; and D1 to D3 were jointly charged with one count of AOABH. All Defendants in DCCC 804/2023 pleaded not guilty to the charges.  The trial was heard by a District Judge.  The Defendant in this case gave evidence as one of the Prosecution witnesses on 13 January 2023. 

3.In gist, the Defendant testified that since August 2022, the Defendant had become the owner of Gallery Education and Culture Centre (the Centre) in Cheung Sha Wan. D4 demanded the Defendant to pay $5,000 per month as protection money.  The Defendant failed to pay between September and November 2022.  At about midnight on 2 November 2022, D1, D2, D3 and another male went to the Centre to collect protection money from the Defendant on behalf of one “Lap Gor”.  D4 later appeared at the Centre as Lap Gor. These people threatened the Defendant that if the Defendant failed to pay $15,000, she could not leave the Centre.  When the Defendant said she could not settle the sum, D1 to D3 assaulted the Defendant with bare hands, which caused certain injuries to her chest wall and her right eye. 

4.During cross-examination by Defence counsel, Kenny Lau (PW1), produced a paper about a quarter of A4 size, together with 2 photocopies of the same in A4 size.  The Defence exhibit was marked as Exhibit D1-1.  That Defence exhibit consisted of a handwritten note purportedly written by the Defendant with her name and Hong Kong Identity Card number, stating that the Defendant had borrowed HK$10,000 on 19 May 2020. 

5.The said Defence exhibit was passed to the Defendant who was in the box.  When confronted with the exhibit, the Defendant replied under oath that she did write Exhibit D1-1 and confirmed that it bore her own signature.  The Defendant stated that the debt was already settled with a person called “Sai Lun” for the purpose of purchasing audio equipment for their joint venture in the form of a live music club. PW1 put the case to the Defendant that the sum, in addition to another HK$5,000, was in fact owed by the Defendant to D1, and that the Defendant had blocked D1 on the phone, hence, D4 had been asking the Defendant to repay the debt. 

6.There was a lunch break during the day. The courtroom was locked during the lunch break.  Later, the court clerk found that Exhibit D1-1 was missing from the witness box.  The trial Judge was informed. The Judge asked all parties to look for the Defence exhibit but to no avail. At about 4 pm on the day, all people present in the courtroom were asked to remain in their seats and police officers conducted a search.  Women police officers searched the Defendant with no discovery. 

7.The CCTV of the courtroom was viewed and it was found that between 1235 hours and 1239 hours on the day, the Defendant was folding the said Exhibit D1-1 in her hands and hid the same either in her pocket or under the table of the witness box. When questioned by WIP Wong, the Defendant claimed that she might have mistakenly thrown the exhibit into the rubbish bin. The exhibit could not be recovered. 

8.The Defendant was arrested for theft. In the video-recorded interview on 14 January 2025, the Defendant stated, inter alia, that:- 

(1) The Defendant thought Exhibit D1-1 was no longer in use and she did not have to return it. She played with it and folded it for fun.

(2) The Defendant then put the exhibit in her pants or shirt pocket.

(3) The Defendant did not tell the Judge about the way she handled the exhibit, but only said it was missing.

9.CCTV footage in the courtroom shows the activity of the Defendant in the witness box when the exhibit was handed over to her, including folding the exhibit, playing with it, and hiding it into her right jacket or pants pocket. 

10.In light of the Defendant’s acts, the Prosecution discontinued the proceedings against D1 to D4 in DCCC 804/2023 and the 4 Defendants were acquitted. 

Mitigation

11.The Defendant was born in Hong Kong and aged 62.  The Defendant was married and has a daughter and a son.  In 2000, the Defendant got divorced.

12.The Defendant was a teacher between 1988 and 2000, and ran her own kindergarten which was closed after 1997. In 2022, the Defendant ran a club at a premises in Cheung Yue Street, Lai Chi Kok, wherein it was alleged that the Defendants in DCCC 804/2023 blackmailed her. 

13.It is submitted that the present matter may involve the deception of the Court. But the level of gravity is low as the gravamen in the present case is one of criminal damage (paragraph 12 of the mitigation).  It must be accepted that the Defendant’s act caused the Prosecution to withdraw the charges against the 4 Defendants in DCCC 804/2023 for which she was the main Prosecution witness (paragraph 14 of the mitigation).  Defence counsel further submitted that the Defendant had come up to proof during her evidence-in-chief and the offence took place during cross-examination (paragraph 18 of the mitigation). 

Sentence

14.The Defendant is aged 62 and has been remanded since July 2025.  The Defendant is suffering from chronic heart disease.  Since September 1994, the Defendant had a total of 7 convictions. She never got jail term until February 2023 when she was convicted of carrying on a catering business failing to comply with directions of the Government, and she was jailed for 6 days.  

15.In the present case, the Defendant made a foolish step when she was giving evidence in Court against 4 Defendants in DCCC 804/2023.  She succeeded in removing an exhibit and up to now, that exhibit cannot be recovered.  She might have lied to the trial Judge when on oath and that could tantamount to perjury. 

16.It is surprising to see that the Defendant failed to realise that many copies of Exhibit D1-1 have been made and filed.  She can destroy the original copy but not others.  It is virtually impossible to “remove” the exhibit in any real sense. 

17.Exhibit D1-1 was an IOU note saying that the Defendant had borrowed $10,000 on 19 May 2020. The offences in DCCC 804/2023 were committed in November 2022, some 2 years after the making of the IOU.  The blackmail related to $15,000 and the Defendant was assaulted with minor injuries that should be recorded in the medical report. The stupid act of the Defendant may affect her credibility, but does it mean she was not assaulted at the very least?  When asked, the Prosecution said they cannot say for sure that the Defendant’s allegations in DCCC 804/2023 were fabricated.  In any event, I am in no position to pass any further comments on that case. 

18.I have considered the sentencing considerations as propounded in SJ v Lee Ying Tung [2023] 3 HKLRD 667, and the fact that a deterrent sentence is called for to subvert the rule of law.  That said, I can see that because of the Defendant’s foolish act, she might well be the victim of her own making and she is to be sent to prison. 

19.Taking all factors into consideration, I take a lenient stance and adopt a starting point of 6 months.  With her plea, the sentence is reduced by one-third to 4 months. Because the Defendant has been remanded since 28 July 2025, I believe she will be released very shortly.