HKSAR v. Lai Tsz Bon
|
DCCC281/2009 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 281 OF 2009 ----------------------
----------------------
-------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.Mr Lai Tsz-bon is the 2nd defendant in the present case and he faces two charges which are Charges 3 and 4. Charge 3 is an offence of false imprisonment contrary to common law and punishable under section 101I of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance Cap. 221 while Charge 4 is criminal intimidation contrary to sections 24(a)(i) and 27 of the Crimes Ordinance Cap. 200. 2.The 2nd defendant pleads guilty to Charge 4 and Charge 3 is left on the court file and is not to be activated without the leave of this court or the Court of Appeal. 3.The particulars of offence of Charge 4 is that the 2nd defendant and two other defendants in the present case, on 14 January 2009 in Hong Kong, together with a person unknown threatened Law Kim-piu with injury to his person with intent to alarm the said Law Kim-piu. Facts Admitted 4.In early 2008, the victim of the charge, Mr Law Kim‑piu borrowed HK$200,000 from D4 of the present case and he was to pay interest of $20,000 per month. From October 2008, Mr Law was unable to make the payments. In December 2008, D4 told Mr Law to pay interest of $80,000 before the Chinese New Year. On 14 January 2009, D1 of the present case together with a male assisted D4 to collect the debt and told Mr Law to pay $50,000 on that day otherwise they would keep him company for one week. A discussion about repayment schedule ensued. 5.Mr Law was then taken onboard of a vehicle and was driven around while further discussion took place. Mr Law tried to open the vehicle door to escape but failed and he was told he could not leave until payment was made. Mr Law telephoned his wife to raise money and the wife made a report to the police. 6.In the evening of the same day Mr Law was driven to Langham Place where the 2nd defendant and D3 boarded the vehicle. D3 asked Mr Law to raise $10,000 to $20,000 as “tea money”. Mr Law asked D1 to D3 to postpone payment but the 2nd defendant said, “If you cannot get the money, we will drive you to the hillside, hang you up and let you be blown for an hour, you will definitely find the money.” 7.At the demand of D3, Mr Law wrote out an IOU to say that he owed D4 $280,000, i.e. $80,000 interests and $200,000 principal, to be repaid by monthly instalments of $70,000 each payable from 25 February. Police then arrived and arrested the 2nd defendant and the others. Criminal Records 8.The 2nd defendant has 23 previous convictions of which one is criminal intimidation which took place in 1996. Mitigation 9.The 2nd defendant is aged 37 and was a salesman of PSP Game console at the time of the offence. He has received primary education. Counsel for the 2nd defendant told the court that he has offered to assist the prosecution in the present case and in another case and has given statements in this connection. It is however declined by the Department of Justice. 10.Counsel points out that the 2nd defendant was only involved in the criminal intimidation and he did not take part in the other matters contained in the summary of facts which he had no knowledge about. There was no suggestion of Triad involvement in the present case and there was no indication the threats uttered by the 2nd defendant were to be carried out. She asked the court to sentence the 2nd defendant on this basis. 11.Counsel further mitigates that the 2nd defendant only became involved in the present case because he had guaranteed a loan given to his brother-in-law by D1 whom the 2nd defendant knew to be a loan shark. On the day of the offence the 2nd defendant came across D1 after work and D1 asked him for repayment. When the 2nd defendant was unable to do so, D1 asked him to help out by verbally threatening Mr Law with words which D1 taught him. D1 promised to waive the interest payment of $4,000 of the loan and to give an extra Renminbi 900 Yuan to 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant did accordingly. 12.According to the counsel the brother-in-law, being the husband of the 2nd defendant’s younger sister, committed suicide in May this year leaving behind three children. The parents of the 2nd defendant separated when the 2nd defendant was a few years old and, as a result, the mother suffered severe psychological trauma. The mother is now of poor health. The younger sister of the 2nd defendant is emotionally unstable because of the death of her husband. The 2nd defendant is now the only man of the family and the whole family depends on him. 13.Counsel points out that the 2nd defendant encountered a car accident in 2007, injuring his leg and back and had continuously received medical treatment for a long period of time. His leg and back still hurt today. 14.Counsel submits three letters written by the 2nd defendant to court. The 2nd defendant explains in the letters how he became involved in the present case, similar in terms to the mitigation put forward by counsel. 15.A letter by a friend of the 2nd defendant who operates a telecommunication company and promises to employ the 2nd defendant after his incarceration is also submitted to the court. 16.Counsel emphasises that the present case is not the worst nor the gravest type of its kind. There was no physical violence used and the role of the 2nd defendant was limited. She asks the court to treat the 2nd defendant leniently. Sentence 17.Counsel correctly points out that there are no sentencing tariffs in the offence of criminal intimidation. This is understandable because the circumstances and criminality in cases of such an offence can vary substantially, so do the sentences that should be imposed. 18.In the present case the victim, Mr Law, was onboard of a vehicle with no way to escape at the time of the offence. He was surrounded by the 2nd defendant and his accomplices. Mr Law was obviously in an extremely helpless situation. Although the 2nd defendant did not make the demand of the “tea money” he uttered the threatening words after such a demand was made in his presence. His intention was no doubt to bring home to the victim that his threats were also directed at enforcing the demand. 19.I accept, however, the mitigation of the defence that there is no evidence that the 2nd defendant took part in, or was aware of the scenario of the case, beyond his participation onboard of the vehicle. 20.After considering all the circumstances the court adopts a starting point of 20 months imprisonment for the present case. Apart from giving credit to the 2nd defendant for his guilty plea, the court is also prepared to give him some discount for offering to assist the prosecution. The court therefore sentences the 2nd defendant to 12 months imprisonment.
|