HKSAR v. Cheung Siu King

HCMA000563/1999

HCMA 563/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 563 OF 1999

(On appeal from NKCC 552 of 1999)

____________

____________

Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Yeung in Court

Date of Hearing: 18 August 1999

Date of Judgment: 18 August 1999

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

1. The Appellant was charged with one count of blackmail and one count of theft, she was sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment and 1 month's imprisonment respectively and to run consecutively. She now appeals against the sentences.

2. The case arose out of a police operation targeting at a syndicate which preyed upon customers of prostitutes. The undercover police officer asked for the service of an escort through an advertisement in a magazine. In response, the Appellant went to the hotel on the pretext of providing such service. The undercover police officer asked for a change of girl. The Appellant then made a call to a man who over the phone said to the officer that unless he paid $5,000.00, he would be beaten up. The Appellant herself took up the threat that unless the officer agreed to pay $2,000.00, she would call her friends to beat up the officer until he died. She eventually left with the $2,000.00 taken from the undercover police officer.

3. The Appellant claimed to have been instructed to do what she did. That may very well be the case. But the offences, in the light of the background, in my view, are extremely serious. It was clearly a syndicated offence targeting at people who could be described as extremely vulnerable. It was also a very well-planned crime in that the offences involved putting up advertisement in order to lure potential victims.

4. Such offences, in my view, must be deterred.

5. The learned magistrate may not be entirely correct in saying that the blackmail charge would attract a sentence of 18 months to 3 years' imprisonment. It is also fair to say that sentence for this type of offence should reflect the factual background of each individual case. But I am firmly of the view that despite the Appellant pleading guilty to the charges, despite of her not having a similar previous conviction and the other mitigating factors, the 10 months' imprisonment is not a day too long for the offences in question.

6. There is no merit in this appeal against sentence and this appeal is dismissed.

Representation:

Mr. John Hemmings instructed by Messrs. Jal. N. Karbhari & Co. for the Appellant

Mr. Joseph To, S.G.C. for Respondent