HKSAR v. Chan Wai Hang and Another

有關向上訴法庭提出的相關上訴,請參閲CACC119/2011。
Case No.HCCC 239/2010
Court
High Court CFI
Date10 Mar 2011
Judge
Case Document
100%

HCCC239/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 239 OF 2010

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

  HKSAR  
  v  
  Chan Wai-hang (A1)  
  Kwok Ping-kan (A2)  
------------------
Before: The Honourable Mr Justice Line
Date: 10 March 2011 at 4.32 pm
Present: Mr Peter Callaghan, on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Poon Ying-yin, Albert, instructed by Messrs Tam, Pun & Yipp, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st Accused
Mr Ho Chun-yiu, Stanley, instructed by Joseph C T Lee & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 2nd Accused
Offence:  (1) Conspiracy to blackmail (串謀勒索罪)
(2)and (3) Blackmail (勒索罪)

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: It has been said that blackmail is one of the ugliest and most vicious of crimes. The judge who said that also made the observation that the courts have always imposed severe sentences for it, and he said, because of that, it was seldom one saw a person convicted for a second time of blackmail. Deterrence is perhaps the most important part of the sentence in such cases.

The background of this case of blackmail is to be found in the kidnapping and ransom of Walter Kwok in the 1990s. $600 million was paid for his safe return. The demand had been for a billion.

In 2009, you demanded payment of the balance of 400 million. You chose the wife of Walter Kwok as your victim.

By reason of the verdict of guilty of conspiracy, it is quite clear that both of you were involved in the sending of material to her successfully designed to put her in mind of the previous kidnapping. The menace was obvious. The implied threat of a repeated kidnapping of either Walter Kwok or some other member of the family was a wicked one, reopening old wounds.

Because of the huge amount you demanded and because of the nature of the menace that was made accompanying the demand, this becomes a very bad case of blackmail. What your relationship was, if any, with those who kidnapped Walter Kwok is unknown. I make it clear that the sentence I pass upon you is in no way based on any finding or perception that you participated in that kidnapping.

The sentence is based upon the mischief of you using your knowledge of it to menace for money a woman who had obviously been hurt by it. It is thus that I wish to make it clear beyond doubt to the public that your sentence is not based upon you being a kidnapper at any time. Your convictions in this case do not establish that to be the case. If it had been otherwise, the sentence would have been substantially longer.

There is little capable of mitigating this crime. The trial has been conducted expeditiously and sensibly, and I give what weight I can to that in my sentence. But the allowance is one more of attitude than calculation, and it has to be modest given the circumstances and given the fact that most of the matters which you did admit were not really amenable to any sensible challenge.

The maximum sentence for blackmail is imprisonment for 14 years. That maximum applies to the offence of which you have been convicted, namely conspiracy to blackmail.

I judge that the right sentence in each of your cases is one of 10 years’ imprisonment.

You were both in this conspiracy together, and I see no justification for differentiating between you.

有關向上訴法庭提出的相關上訴,請參閲CACC119/2011。