HKSAR v. Wong King Sang and Another

DCCC 220/2025

[2026] HKDC 907

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 220 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

D1 and D2 are jointly charged with one offence of "Blackmail" (Charge 4)  and one offence of "False imprisonment" (Charge 5). D1 alone faces a charge of "Assaulting occasioning actual bodily harm" (Charge 1), a charge of "Theft" (Charge 2), and a charge of "Robbery" (Charge 3).

2.D1 pleaded guilty to Charges 1, 4 and 5.  D2 pleaded guilty to Charge 4.  I granted the prosecution's application to leave Charges 2 and 3 against D1 and Charge 5 against D2 on the court file; not to be proceeded against them without leave of court.

Summary of Facts

3.Female X (PW1; aged 26)  and Male Y (PW2; aged 25)  were a couple.  They lived together with 3 children.

4.Around 10 May 2023, PWs 1 and 2 had an argument.  On 11 May 2023, PW1 temporarily moved to her friend Madam Lau's home at Shin Chi House, Shin Ming Estate, Tseung Kwan O ("Location 1"), which was a flat with no bedrooms.  The flat had 3 beds.

Charge 1

5.In the evening on 4 June 2023, PW1 was at Location 1 together with Madam Lau, a Madam Wong, D1 and D2.  PW1 had been friends with Madam Wong for a few years.  To PW1's knowledge, D2 called herself as Madam Wong's elder godsister.  Prior to that day, PW1 had encountered D1 once or twice at Location 1.

6.About 10:00 p.m. on 4 June 2023, PW1 was resting in bed at Location 1.  D1 and Madam Wong suddenly walked towards her.  Madam Wong told D1 that PW1 owed her money.  D1 then began to accuse PW1 of betraying her friend(s)  and treating her friend(s)  poorly.  PW1 denied.  D1 reacted violently by hitting PW1 with his fists, kicking her and hitting her head, face, hands, waist and legs with a broomstick for 20 odd times.  Madam Lau tried to stop D1 but failed.  He stopped when the broomstick broke into 2 pieces.  

Charges 4 and 5

7.After the attack, D1 asked PW1 to call her family to ask for $15,000 to repay her debt.  D1 threatened PW1 saying that if she refused, he would continue to beat her up and would not let her leave Location 1.  D2 also told PW1 to speak carefully on the phone and not to seek help.  PW1 was afraid that D1 would beat her to death, so she revealed PW2's phone number to D1.

8.About 11:17 in the same evening, D1 called PW2 (using phone number 6737 7328).  He passed the phone to PW1, who told PW2 that she needed $15,000, or she would be beaten to death.  Madam Wong then took the phone from PW1.  PW2 told Madam Wong that he would pay when he had PW1 back, and Madam Wong agreed.  Madam Wong arranged to meet PW2 at the Ground Floor of Sheung Sam House, Lung Hang Estate, Tai Wai ("Location 2").

9.Initially, PW2 suspected that PW1 was deceiving him, so he asked for some photos as proof.  He received (from 6737 7328)  4 photos of PW1 showing injuries on her arms and legs.  After receiving the photos, PW2 called the same number and repeated that he would pay the sum when he had PW1 back.

10.After the phone call, D1, D2 and Madam Wong told PW1 to follow them (collectively "the Party").  They boarded a taxi.  PW1 noticed that D1 had a pair of scissors in his left trouser pocket.  Although PW1 was not physically restrained, she did not run away or seek help due to her fear of D1 harming her.

11.About 1:00 a.m. on 5 June 2023, the Party arrived at Location 2.  D2 alighted from the taxi to meet PW2.  PW2 gave $15,000 cash to D2.  D1 then opened the door, allowing PW1 to exit the taxi.  Afterwards, D1, D2 and Madam Wong boarded the taxi and left.  The police were alerted on the same day.

12.PW1 arrived at Prince of Wales Hospital at 1:44 a.m. on 5 June 2023.  Medical examination found the following injuries:  scalp hematoma near vertex; right face redness and pain; right ring finger tip bruise; left mid-forearm, flank and lateral thigh linear erythematous marks of contusion; and left forearm swelling.  All these injuries were caused by D1.

Arrest and ID parades

13.D1 and D2 were arrested on 10 and 11 July 2023 respectively.

14.On 26 October 2023, PWs 1 and 2 positively identified D2 in an identification parade.  On 6 January 2025, PW1 positively identified D1.

Other evidence

15.On 1 August 2023, PW2 received a video clip (2 minutes and 51 seconds)  on WhatsApp from an unknown sender.  The footage showed PW1 and D1 arguing, with D1 accusing PW1 of owing people money, which PW1 denied.  Beating sounds and PW1's screams could also be heard.  A male voice, identified by PW1 as D1's, repeatedly threatened to stab PW1.

Mitigation

D1

16.He is 34 and has 4 prior convictions for 8 offences, including 2 triad-related and one for "Criminal damage".  His counsel Mr. Leung informed me that D1 resided with his parents (aged 62 and 61; both retired).  His most recent job was a cleaner at a hospital earning about $13,000 per month.  In mitigation, Mr. Leung submitted that PW1 did owe D1 money ($1,500 instead of $15,000).  She promised to pay him back that night but failed to do so.  D1 became angry. Fortunately, PW1's injuries were not so serious.  She was detained for less than 2 hours and was not physically restrained or mistreated in any way.

D2

17.She is 33 and has 5 prior convictions for 5 offences, none were related to "Blackmail".  Her counsel Mr. Ng informed me that D2 is separated.  Her husband resides and works in the mainland.  She has a son (aged 8)  with her ex-boyfriend.  D2's mother helps looking after the boy.  D2's most recent job was an estate agent.  Prior to the pandemic, her performance was strong.  She resigned owing to the pandemic.

18.In mitigation, Mr. Ng explained that D2 was visiting her friend Madam Wong, who was also living at Location 1 at that time.  D2 did not know D1, who happened to be there.  When Madam Wong told D2 that PW1 owed them money and they intended to blackmail her, D2, as a close friend of Madam Wong, foolishly went along with the plan and assisted them.  All she did was to join the taxi trip to Location 2 and collected the money from PW2.  Mr. Ng submitted that D2 did not receive any reward for helping Madam Wong.  Finally, Mr. Ng informed me that D2 has effectively utilized her time during her remand in custody.  She has completed a course in Social Psychology offered by the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Sentence

19.Lugar-Mawson J in HKSAR v Au Wing Yat HCMA 891/2004 held "However it is committed, blackmail is a serious offence.  The circumstances of its commission, however, can vary widely and the sentence to be imposed upon the offender depends very much on the particular facts of the case." [1]

20.I have also reminded myself of the factors to consider when sentencing for the "Blackmail" offence (see HKSAR v Fong King Choi [2019] HKCA 776[2]. The facts in the authorities cited by Mr. Ng are more serious than those in this case.

D1

21.In Charge 4, D1 played a leading role.  I adopt a starting point of 24 months' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 16 months.  Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction.  I sentence D1 to 16 months' imprisonment for this charge.

22.For Charge 1, attacking PW1 with a broomstick until it broke into 2 pieces was savage and brutal.  D1 is lucky to be charged with A.O.A.B.H. instead of a more serious offence.  In view of PW1's injuries, I adopt a starting point of 12 months' imprisonment.  With the timely guilty plea, I sentence D1 to 8 months' imprisonment for this charge.

23.For Charge 5, being beaten up and forced to call PW2 for money must have already been a traumatic experience for PW1.  Considering the duration of her being detained, I adopt a starting point of 21 months' imprisonment[3].  With the timely guilty plea, I sentence D1 to 14 months' imprisonment for this charge.

24.Charges 1, 4 and 5 arose from the same incident and are integral to the scheme of obtaining money from PW1.  I have reminded myself not to punish D1 twice for any offence.  Bearing in mind the totality principle, I consider a global starting point of 3 years' imprisonment appropriate and just for all 3 charges.  With the timely guilty pleas, the overall sentence is reduced to 24 months.  Hence, I order 4 months in Charge 1 to run consecutively to Charge 4; and 4 months in Charge 5 to run consecutively to Charges 1 and 4.

D2

25.In Charge 4, D2 played a lesser role than D1.  I adopt a starting point of 21 months' imprisonment.  With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 14 months.  Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction.  I sentence D2 to 14 months' imprisonment for this charge.