Li Sang v. The Queen

CACC000441/1976

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

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

Coram: McMullin J. in Court.

Date of Judgment: 14 May 1976

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to two charges of blackmail and two charges of theft.

2. The facts were that on the 13th of March he approached a hawker at a stall at Sau Mau Ping and demanded of him $5 in order to ensure that he could continue peacefully in his business. The victim being frightened paid him $5. That sum of money was the subject matter of the theft charge concerning the incident on the 13th of March. A similar incident occurred on the 18th of March when the appellant approached another hawker at Sau Mau Ping asked for several hundred dollars as the protection fee saying that if he did not pay he had better take care of his stall. He received $2 from that hawker and on the 20th of March he returned again and asked for a few dollars but without threat on this occasion. However, the victim paid him $1 and on a later occasion, the 24th of March, he returned to the same man and asked him to give him a dollar. At this point the victim refused and sent somebody to fetch a Mutual Aid Committee chairman. The appellant left without making any further threat.

3. The appellant received sentences of 18 months in respect of the two blackmail charges and 6 months on each of the linked theft charges, these latter sentences to run concurrently with the sentences imposed upon the blackmail charges. Counsel for the Crown drew my attention to the fact that although the record discloses that the two sentences of 18 months were imposed to run consecutively to each other the learned magistrate in his Reasons for Sentence, having referred to the unfortunate position of the appellant as disclosed in his statement in mitigation, and having referred further to the plea of guilty, noted that he "felt that a custodial sentence was inevitable and that the very minimum period must be 18 months". Counsel felt some misgiving as to whether in view of that statement there may not have been a mistake in imposing the sentences consecutively upon the blackmail charges and he informed the court that he had tried to contact the magistrate concerned prior to the hearing of the appeal but in the time available had been unable to do so, I confess that I felt, on first reading these papers, that, notwithstanding the serious nature of the charges, a total of three years was in view of the actual circumstances of the appellant's approaches to the victims and of the small sums obtained distinctly on the heavy side. The appellant is perhaps the beneficiary in the present appeal of a doubt which may not have a substantial foundation. However in all the circumstances I felt that justice would best be served by making all the sentences to run concurrently and the appeal was allowed to that extent.

Representation: