Lee Kwok Shung and Others v. The Queen
|
CACC001123/1976
Coram: Briggs, C. J., Huggins & Pickering, JJ.A. Date of Judgment: 24 March 1977 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellants were found guilty of one charge of false imprisonment and one charge of blackmail. In addition, the first and third appellants were found guilty of the theft of $3,000 and the third appellant was found guilty of a second charge of theft, in this case the sum was $550. The appellants appealed against these convictions and sentences. 2. The case for the prosecution was that a certain Mr. Wong, a businessman living in Taiwan, got into serious financial difficulties and came somewhat hurriedly to Hong Kong, where he also had business interests. 3. The first appellant operates a firm which collects debts and the second appellant is employed by him in that business. Mr. Wong instructed the first appellant's firm to collect a certain debt which was due to his firm. 4. The third appellant is a sergeant in the Special Branch of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force and became aware of Mr. Wong's difficulties. 5. An arrangement was made between the appellants that Mr. Wong should be blackmailed. An elaborate plot was set in motion. Mr. Wong and his wife were approached and threatened that unless a large sum of money was paid they would be deported to Taiwan. Other threats were made. 6. It is unnecessary to go into the details but the evidence was that the appellants virtually imprisoned Mr. and Mrs. Wong in a hotel room for a whole night while these threats were in operation. 7. Mr. Wong was forced to hand over such money as was in his possession, which amounted to $550. Later, he was forced to withdraw a sum of $3,000 from his bank. 8. Eventually the police were contacted and the appellants were caught. 9. Each appellant played a different role in the plot. There were others not before the court involved as well. There is no doubt that the third appellant bore the most important part and was certainly one of the ringleaders, if not the ringleader. 10. Subject to what is written below there was ample evidence of the part played by each appellant and with two exceptions we dismissed all the appeals against conviction. 11. We allowed the appeal of the first appellant against his conviction for theft. As we have already said, Mr. Wong was forced by the appellants to withdraw $3,000 from his bank. The first appellant was present at the bank at the time. But there was no evidence that he either did or said anything on that occasion. He was merely there: his guilt of the theft seems to have been inferred from the fact of his presence alone. We therefore quashed his conviction on that charge. 12. We also allowed the appeal of the fifth appellant on the two principal charges of false imprisonment and blackmail. 13. Mr. and Mrs. Wong were taken from Hong Kong to an hotel in the New Territories by the appellants. The fifth appellant joined this party, which travelled in two cars, and he was present at the hotel for a considerable time. However, he left quite soon and took no part in the later events such as going to Mr. Wong's bank. 14. There was very little evidence against the fifth appellant and that evidence, such as it was, was explained by him in a manner which if left to a jury must have raised a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. We therefore quashed his conviction. 15. All the appellants appealed against their sentences. As said above, we were of the opinion that the third appellant was the principal offender. He was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment for false imprisonment and four years for blackmail, and six months and twelve months respectively for the two charges of theft. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. We considered that a total of four years was a proper sentence in the circumstances of this case and we dismissed his appeal. 16. The other appellants played lesser parts and we did not think that the sentences passed upon them reflected that fact sufficiently. On the charge of blackmail, the first appellant was sentenced to three and a half years' imprisonment, the second appellant to three years and the fourth appellant to three years - we reduce these sentences to two and a half years' imprisonment for the first and fourth appellants and to one year for the second appellant. Except as is mentioned above, the other sentences were ordered to stand.
Representation: Eddis (P. Mo & Co.) for 1st appellant Kotewall (R. Young & Co.) for 2nd appellant C.Y. Wong (D.L.A.) for 3rd & 4th appellant Sanguinetti (H.H. Lau & Co.) for 5th appellant P.K. Lee for crown |