CRIMINAL CASE NO. 313 OF 2009
COURT: You have pleaded guilty to one charge of false imprisonment. This is an offence at Common Law, punishable pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Ordinance with a maximum sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment.
The Summary of Facts admitted by you reveals that the victim was an Indonesian national employed in Hong Kong as a domestic helper. She had at all times been employed by a family living in Tuen Mun. She and you were in a relationship. This had been the case for some time prior to the events of 15 and 16 March 2009. By that time, the relationship had soured. It appears that this was at the instigation of the victim, and contrary to your wishes.
On 9 March 2009, the victim told you that she wanted the relationship to cease. She refused to take telephone calls from you. However, on 14 March, the day before the offence, you again called the victim and told her that you obtained accommodation very close to where she lived with her employer’s family.
On the morning of 15 March, you called the victim. This was a Sunday, and it was her normal rest day. She did not want to see you, so she told you that she was working. This apparently did not sit well with you. Given that she was then aware that you were living close by, she checked to see if you were outside before leaving home that morning.
As she was walking towards the railway station you confronted her. You accused her of lying to you. You then took her mobile telephone, and took her to a wooden hut nearby. Having entered the premises with the victim, you locked the door and refused to allow her to leave. This remained the case throughout the course of that day.
Around 9.30 pm, the victim managed to find her mobile telephone, but you refused to allow her to make any calls. The victim begged you to be allowed to leave and return to where she lived with her employer. She told you that her employer would be worried about her. You refused to allow her to leave.
Shortly before midnight, she thought that you were asleep and tried again to leave, but you stopped her. The following morning, the victim again begged you to be allowed to leave. You finally relented. You then returned her mobile telephone to her and escorted her to her employer’s premises nearby.
As the victim had anticipated, her employers were worried about her whereabouts. When she had not returned to their home, they had reported the matter to the police.
You were arrested at the wooden hut on the morning of the 16th.
Ms Moosdeen, on your behalf, has told me something of your background. You are an Indian national. You are aged 42 years of age, and currently seeking asylum in Hong Kong. You are not a person of clear record. In September of 2008 you were convicted of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and sentenced to be imprisoned for 2 months, which sentence was suspended. Shortly after that, some two months later, you were in breach of the suspended sentence. You were charged and convicted of an offence of breach of condition of stay. You were also dealt with for the breach of the suspended sentence.
On your behalf, Ms Moosdeen has made reference extensively to the relationship that had previously existed between yourself and the victim. She has told me that the relationship began in the early 1980s in Malaysia and resumed after a chance meeting in Hong Kong in early 2008. She pointed out that up until March of 2009 there was clearly a close and loving relationship between yourself and the victim, and this, it is said, is evidenced by the fact that the victim visited you whilst you were in prison. She wrote to you and sent you photographs of herself. I accept that this was in fact the case.
Ms Moosdeen has told me that throughout the course of your life you have for a substantial period been employed outside of India, sending the vast majority of your income back to support your family. She points out that you are clearly remorseful, and the fact that the victim does not have to give evidence in this matter is mitigation of some moment. It is submitted on your behalf that this is not a case where a person has been detained for a ransom or the repayment of a debt.
I agree, but I should point out that had in fact that been the case, you would have been charged with a different and more serious offence. Your actions, Ms Moosdeen points out, were foolish and not premeditated. I agree, but nevertheless it must have been a frightening ordeal for the victim.
It is accepted on your behalf that the only appropriate sentence is a custodial sentence. I agree. You will be given a full discount from the starting point which I adopt. That will reflect your plea of guilty and also the fact that the victim has not given evidence.
I consider that the appropriate starting point for this offence is one of 30 months’ imprisonment. Allowing for the plea of guilty, I will give you a one-third discount from that, and impose a sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment. For the avoidance of doubt, that includes consideration of the fact that the victim has not given evidence.