The Queen v. Wong Yeu Kai

CACC000040/1989

BETWEEN

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

Coram: Hon. Yang, C.J., Hon. Silke, V.-P. & Hon. Power, J.A.

Date of Hearing: 24 October 1989

Date of Judgment: 24 October 1989

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Hon. Yang, C.J.:

1. The applicant Wong Yue-kai pleaded guilty before Judge Cameron to a charge of Blackmail and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

2. The facts are that on the 14th June last year the applicant wrote a letter to the victim, a Mr. Ho Hung Sun who is a well-known figure in Hong Kong and is known to be a very wealthy man. In that letter the applicant demanded a sum of $3.5 million and threatened the victim's life and the life of his son if the money was not paid. On the 8th July a second letter in similar terms was sent to the victim.

3. On the 27th July police officers posing as the victim's representatives waited at the oriental Restaurant in Mongkok: this location being one designated by the applicant.

4. A telephone call was then received by the police with a direction that the ransom should be dropped into a letter box at the first floor staircase of a designated address. The package that had been prepared which was to be dropped into the letter box was rigged with an alarm system. Shortly after the package was dropped into the letter box the alarm went off. The police then went forward and intercepted the applicant.

5. He was, however, after enquiry, released.

6. On the 29th July the applicant, his explanation having been found wanting, was again intercepted, this time at the Macau Ferry, when he attempted to depart from Hong Kong. On his person were found a number of articles including a piece of paper with these words: "His son was born by his second wife and is only twelve years old. His eldest son died in a car crash."

7. In his cautioned statement the applicant admitted to having committed the blackmail and stated as his reason for blackmailing the victim was the gambling losses which he had suffered.

8. A number of mitigating factors were put before the trial judge and these were duly considered in the judge's assessment of the appropriate sentence to be passed.

9. The terms of the letters contained some serious threats which were quoted by the trial judge in his Reasons for Verdict. The terms went something like this: "we five killers have bad news for you"; the daily movements of the victim were known and it would be easy for the applicant and his men to shoot him dead. The applicant further described himself and the others as professional killers, who had been engaged in this line for over ten years during which time they had "never got pinched because every time a person was shot dead the pistol would not be used again". He went on to say that he and his companions were "no petty thieves but people who did big jobs and that even though the victim were the Governor of Hong Kong and wore a bullet-proof vest night and day they would still find the means to kill him". The writer then went on to describe himself and his companions as "good marksmen and that all their targets were shot in their heads".

10. The manner in which the ransom was paid seemed sophisticated. The instruction for payment was that the package which was dropped into the letter box was to contain five ETC cards from which the applicant could draw money after the intended victim had opened five accounts with the Hong Kong & Shanghai Bank, and it was expected that the victim would inject funds into those accounts which the applicant would then draw.

11. The trial judge took into consideration the applicant's plea of guilty and all the mitigating factors. He adopted a starting point of seven years' imprisonment. In the light of the plea of guilty, the trial judge gave a discount of two years.

12. In his submission this morning, Mr. Murray on behalf of the applicant argued that the starting point of seven years was too high. Though he does not quarrel with the discount given, a number of authorities were cited including Thomas on Sentencing to indicate the level of sentence. We do not think it necessary to review the authorities cited by Mr. Murray and by Mr. Cross on behalf of the Crown. Suffice it to say that having regard to all the circumstances, in particular the need to introduce an element of deterrence in a sentence for a case of this type and the vulnerability of well-known and wealthy persons in Hong Kong to blackmail, we are of the view that whilst a starting point of seven years is on the high side it is nevertheless within an acceptable range for sentences for offences of this kind.

13. We would therefore refuse the application.

Representation:

Mr. R. Murray (DLA) for Applicant

Mr. I.G. Cross & Ms. Patty Lee for Crown/Respondent