HKSAR v. Lui Chun Wa

DCCC802/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 802 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant is convicted after trial for two counts of false imprisonment. The facts were typical that the failed Macau gambler borrowed money, defendant and another person accompanied the victim back to Hong Kong for verifying address and collecting part repayment as promised. When finding victim could not pay, defendant became agitated, moving arms pretending to hit her, grabbed her and forced the victim and her son to go back to Macau against their will.

2.Defendant aged 47. He has been a “takma” in Macau for several years attending and serving gambler.  He has 34 previous criminal convictions, mostly related to drugs and the last conviction was dated back 9 years ago in 2001. 

3.Mr Iu, for the defendant submits that the circumstances were that the defendant must have been too zealous to execute his duty when finding the victim having no means to pay.  He says the underlying debt is genuine and not from any misleading or deceiving tricks.  The victim knew full well she has to repay as promised but simply could not.  As there was no way out, defendant did the offence foolishly.

4.False imprisonment is a serious offence.  There is no tariff sentence.  All cases depend on its own facts. The serious side of this matter surely concerns the son of the victim of 17 years old whom were also forced to go as well.  As the young man said he was panicked and dared not saying anything, knowing not what would have happen to them and not knowing when would they come back to Hong Kong.  Had it not been victim calling police in the terminal they would have had gone to Macau knowing not what would have occurred to them.  The circumstances were serious and frightening. 

5.In HKSAR v Lim Hai Bun, Benny CACC 213/1999, the facts were similar and the Court of Appeal adopt what the judge said, those who do and attempt to enforce such loans by illegal means, in particular, by the sort of means adopted in that case, false imprisonment and blackmail, will be severely dealt with by the courts in Hong Kong. In that case, 3½ years’ imprisonment was imposed on false imprisonment. 

6.For the present case, as said above, the facts were serious and I could not accept the suggestion where the defendant was just simply too zealous to execute his duty.  By directing and enforcing not only the victim but also the son to go as well, it was serious enough to impose a similar sentence. Yet, it must be noted that there was no triad overtone nor blackmail effected, nor was any actual injury suffered by the victims. 

7.In the circumstances, for both charges I consider it appropriate to impose 3 years’ imprisonment on each charge.  For totality I order it to be served concurrently.  So the defendant, the sentence you receive on both charge is 3 years’ imprisonment.