Mui Kin-chau and The Ohters v. Teh Queen
|
CACC000712/1976
Coram: Briggs, C.J. , McMullin & Leonard, JJ. Date of Judgment: 29 September, 1976. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The three appellants were convicted upon a series of charges concerning linked offences of blackmail and theft. The victim in each case was a Mr. LAU Chuen, the owner of a dispensary in Kwun Tong. He told the Court of a number of visits by one or more of the three appellants between the 13th February, 1976 and 16th March, 1976. On each occasion demands for money were made in the name of an "elder brother" coupled with threats of various kinds concerning his person or business. The first and third appellants were clearly the most active participants in this systematic course of extortion. For their part in it they received sentences of nine months each on five counts of blackmail and five corresponding thefts the sentences on the related charges to be concurrent to each other but to run consecutively to the concurrent sentences on the other linked charges i.e. a total of forty-five months in the case of both accused. We found nothing in the appeals of the first and third appellants either on sentence or conviction to warrant interference. All three appellants were in fact arrested in flagrante delicto by police waiting in ambush in Mr. Lau's shop. The first and second appellants were arrested on the 13th March and the third appellant on the 16th March. 2. However, the learned District Judge appears to have overlooked the fact that although the second appellant was charged with having taken part with the first appellant in the offences charged in the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth charges (relating to the demands made on 10th and 12th March respectively) the complainant's evidence was that it was the first and third appellants who visited him on those dates. The learned judge did indeed acquit the second appellant on the seventh and eighth charges but gave as his reasons (a) that the complainant had only mentioned the first appellant in relation to the demand made on the 12th March; and (b), that the second appellant had made no admission concerning that charge in the statement to the police. It is plain, however, that the evidence did not show the offences laid against the second appellant in any of the four charges arising from the events of the 10th and 12th March. For this reason the appeal of the second appellant was allowed to the extent that the convictions on charges five and six were quashed and the sentences imposed thereunder were set aside. The result is that the second appellant will serve a sentence of nine months instead of eighteen months. Representation: Appellants in person. Murphy, Crown Counsel, for Respondent. |