HKSAR v. Lee Ho Kwong and Others

DCCC23/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 23 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.All four defendants before this court have pleaded guilty to conspiracy to blackmail, contrary to section 23(1) and (3) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210, as well as sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200.

2.The particulars of the offence are that four defendants, between 21 November 2009 and 26 November 2009, in Hong Kong, conspired together, and with other unknown persons, with a view to gain for themselves or another, made unwarranted demands of monthly payment of HK$3,000 from Great Leader Bus Holding Limited with menaces. This is a classic case of triads collecting protection money from a local business.

3.Great Leader Bus Holding Limited is a private bus company situated in the Tuen Mun area. On 21 November last year two men, one having been identified as the 1st defendant, approached this company. The 1st defendant gave an employee of this company a piece of paper with a telephone number written upon it. He told her that they were from “Fei Kit”, she was to give this telephone number to the person in charge and tell him or her to call that number today with that day without fail. And if no call was made, he did not know what would be the consequences of this. There is a threat in those words.

4.Another employee overheard this conversation and joined the employee and the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant told this employee just to call this telephone number. This employee asked the 1st defendant what was the matter which he was referring to. The 1st defendant said that he was rallying help, meaning literally that he was fetching horses, and would make a call from his mobile phone. The 1st defendant then said that nobody was coming now and told the employees to call that number.

5.The second employee asked the 1st defendant which society he came from, to which he replied, “Fei Kit”. The 1st defendant and this male then left the premises. This second employee called that telephone number using his own phone, and a male answered and told this employee that they had so many buses, “Don’t you think you have to hand out some money?” This employee then said, “In other words, you want to collect protection fee. I am only an employee. I will have to tell the person in charge.” This male on the phone identified himself as “Ah Keung”.

6.The proprietor was informed of this matter, and the police were informed and became involved. A police officer took on the role of the person-in-charge. He tried to call the contact telephone number several times.

7.On 25 November this officer received a call from a male, identifying himself as “Ah Keung”. This male told this officer that the company’s office was within Lam Tei and the buses used the bus stops in that area, and that monthly red packets would have to be collected to support a group of brothers, and “lai see” would be treated as protection fee and a guarantee that no one would cause them problems in the future. This officer was told that if the company was not willing to pay these red packets, windshields on the buses may become broken, or that fires would break out on the buses.

8.On 26 November, the next day, a meeting was set up, and the officer was supplied with HK$5,000 marked money from the police. Other officers were set up around the bus depot. This undercover officer called the contact telephone number again and spoke to “Ah Keung”, and “Ah Keung” told him that he would have to receive $5,000 that day. If there was any trouble, that the company could call that telephone number for help. After some negotiations a monthly fee of $3,000 was negotiated.

9.Later that day the 1st and 2nd defendant arrived at the bus depot and dealt with the undercover officer. The 1st defendant asked him where was the money. This officer asked them both if they were able to make any final decisions. The 2nd defendant told this officer that his “Big Brother” told him to collect this protection fee, so clearly he was able to make decisions. This officer asked what protection this money would earn him. The 2nd defendant replied that the safety of the bus depot was guaranteed because they were the “tor dei” of that area, and if protection fee was paid nobody would dare interfere with the bus company.

10.This police officer insisted on “Ah Keung” coming to collect the money himself. The 2nd defendant made a telephone call to the 4th defendant. The 3rd and 4th defendant were observed by other police officers waiting in a car nearby. The 3rd defendant was the driver. Shortly after all four defendants were arrested.

11.The 1st defendant is 18 years old and has a clear record. The 2nd defendant is 22 years old and has one previous conviction for assault, for which he served a probation order. The 3rd defendant is 20 years old and has a robbery and assault conviction, and has not only served a probation order but been sent to a drug addiction treatment centre. The 4th defendant is 22 years old and has previous convictions involving dutiable commodities, as well as forged trade mark goods, and has served a period of detention in a rehabilitation centre.

12.After the defendants pleaded guilty I adjourned this sentence for reports relating to various institutions. I have seen these four reports, as well as have heard full mitigation put forward on these defendants’ behalf today.

13.The defendants, despite being young, have gone astray some time ago. All four, from the reports, can clearly be seen to have strong triad links. They are deep-rooted triad members that rely on triad activities to make a living. All four admit that they are active triad members.

14.During the interviews, rather disappointingly, the officers who conducted the interviews have little to say about the defendants that is positive. The 1st defendant is described as being “uncooperative”. The 2nd defendant is described as being “carefree and showing no remorse”. The 3rd defendant is described as “evasive”. The 4th defendant is described as “impolite, uncooperative, and having no sense of remorse”, as well as having an ingrained triad subculture.

15.Despite the defendants’ arrest and period served in remand, clearly there is little remorse demonstrated. This is not a case of bully boys acting like triads. This is a case where the four defendants are very active triad members. Threats were made that would have affected the livelihood of a local business, as well as the safety of its employees. Two triads have gone face-to-face with employees, whereas two others were nearby for support. What was said would have caused fear and concern to those who dealt with these remarks.

16.It has been said time and time again that blackmail is a very serious offence and deterrence is a very important part of sentence. In this case, having read these reports, I am not sure rehabilitation would have been likely to show any success bearing in mind the attitudes of the defendants. These offences, activities and defendants are intolerable, and sentence should reflect it. Youth is of little consequence here.

17.All four defendants’ roles in this case are indistinguishable. All are equally culpable. All four will be treated equally where sentence is concerned. There are no tariffs for offences of this nature, except to say that custodial sentence is appropriate. Training centre or detention centre has been deemed unsuitable for all four defendants.

18.I have looked at the authorities provided to me by the defence today, in particular HKSAR v Cheung Wan Ing, DCCC1146/1999, as well as HKSAR v Wong Fu Wah [1999] 1 HKC 363.After looking at these authorities, considering the defendants’ mitigation, the facts of the case and the contents of the reports called for; I will take a starting point of 3 years and 9 months. Defendants have all pleaded guilty and will be entitled to a discount of one-third for their pleas. That will be a discount of 15 months.

19.Accordingly, each defendant is sentenced to 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.