HKSAR v. Chan Hok Yan, Gloria

DCCC715/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 715 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant stands convicted after trial of one count of blackmail. I shall not repeat the findings that I made on 31 December 2010. As an epitome of the findings I made, suffice for me to state that the defendant came to know the victim of this case, Mr X, in 2005 when the defendant worked as a receptionist of a restaurant in Kwai Chung. X was then in his late 60s, a wealthy businessman and a regular patron of the restaurant. X showed much affection to the defendant after he came to know her. He wrote notes to the defendant, showing his affection. He gave generous tips to the defendant when he patronised the restaurant. Apart from the generous tips, X also paid the defendant $50,000 on one occasion and $20,000 on another occasion. At a later stage, X also employed the defendant as a shipping clerk in his company. Apart from paying the defendant her monthly salary, X paid the defendant $10,000 per month.

2.X tried to develop a romantic relationship with the defendant.  He showed his affection towards the defendant by words, both spoken and written, and by lavish payments of money and gifts and by conduct, i.e. what defence counsel referred to as sexual advances, for example, touching of the defendant’s hands and shoulders and embracing the defendant with intent to kiss her. 

3.The defendant left X’s company after she decided to marry her boyfriend.  X gave the defendant $100,000 to pay for her wedding. After the defendant got married, the defendant continued to meet X once or twice a month.  In October 2006, the defendant gave birth to her son.  On each occasion X met the defendant, he would give the defendant some money and the amount varied from several thousand dollars to $10,000.  During their meetings, the defendant had complained to X about the deteriorating relationship with her husband, and the issue of divorce was discussed.

4.X and the defendant went to a hotel and they had sex for the first time around the end of February to the beginning of March 2010.  The two had sex in the same hotel again in mid‑March 2010.  There was a third meeting in the same hotel, but the defendant refused to have sex with X, and the two parted in somewhat acrimonious atmosphere.

5.X started to distance himself from the defendant after the third visit.  It was under the aforesaid circumstances that the defendant wrote and sent X the blackmail letter.  In the letter, among other things, the defendant claimed she had filmed what happened between the defendant and X in the hotel room during their first visit to the hotel.  The defendant demanded HK$3 million from X.  Should X fail to pay as demanded, the defendant would take all the things to the newspaper and magazine publishers. In fact, the threat made by the defendant was an idle threat.  She had not filmed anything during the hotel visit.

6.The defendant had a clear record.  Before sentence, I called for a background report.  When the defendant was interviewed by the probation officer, she just repeated what she said in court, i.e. she just sent X the threatening letter to get a response from X without any intention to get any money from X.

7.I disagree with Mr Davies that the defendant had shown remorse in the background report.  The fact remains the defendant pleaded not guilty to the charge.  She showed no remorse throughout the trial and she showed no remorse in the background report.  The so-called remorse is superficial.  On this ground alone, the defendant is not a suitable candidate for a community service order.

8.It was urged on the defendant’s behalf that this case has attracted much publicity and the defendant suffers much humiliation as a result.  On my part, I do not see it as a mitigating factor which can entitle the defendant to any discount.  Mr Davies once submitted that the defendant had no intention to obtain any money from X.  Had it been the case, I would not have found the defendant guilty.

9.I accept the defendant had a positive good character.  She had been a successful athlete and she had represented Hong Kong in some major sports events.  From the photo album placed before me, the defendant is obviously a person of versatile talents. 

10.I have read all the mitigation letters placed before me.  The defendant has much support from her parents, former school principal, former coach and district councillor.  I can understand the feelings of the defendant’s father and all those who are showing their support. However, the defendant has committed a very serious offence, and a term of imprisonment is the only appropriate punishment.

11.Mr Davies urged me to consider suspending the sentence if the defendant was to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

12.I have considered all the matters urged on the defendant’s behalf.  At the end, I do not see any exceptional circumstances or humanitarian grounds to suspend the sentence.  In sentencing the defendant, I have borne in mind that there is no tariff for the offence of blackmail. Sentence will vary with the circumstances of the case.

13.In the present case, I bear in mind that the threat to send the video clip to the press was an idle threat as the defendant had not filmed anything during the first visit to the hotel.  I also bear in mind X, the victim of the blackmail offence, to some extent was a victim of his own sins.  He had showered the defendant with moneys and gifts for years for the purpose of developing an extramarital romantic relationship with the defendant.  At the time of the offence, X was the only source of income for the defendant, and the offence took place at a time when X was trying to distance himself from the defendant.

14.On the other hand, the fact that there is much to be said about X’s conduct did not entitle the defendant to blackmail X in the way she did.  Had X acceded to the defendant’s demand, the defendant would stand to gain $3 million through her blackmailing act. 

15.On the facts before me, a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment after trial is appropriate.  I allow 3 months’ reduction for the defendant’s positive good character.  I see no other reason to further reduce the sentence.  For the reasons given, I sentence the defendant to 15 months’ imprisonment, and she has to serve the term immediately.