Lai Chung Kai and Others v. The Queen
|
CACC000097/1975 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 97 OF 1975 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins & McMullin, JJ. Date of Judgment: 5th May 1975. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Huggins, J.: 1. We are concerned here with a series of very serious offences. A young girl was seized at knife point, carried off in a motor-car and detained against her will for nearly a week. It is difficult to imagine the strain on the parents of this girl, who were overseas, and on her god-parents, who had accepted responsibility for her care while she was in Hong Kong. We must agree with the learned judge that these were offences which "cried out for imprisonment" in spite of the youth of some of the Accused. 2. We say at once that we think that the first Defendant, who has not appealed, was very fortunate in receiving a sentence of no more than four years' imprisonment. Even though he probably was not the master-mind behind the series of offences he took an active part in the abduction during which violence was used. 3. As to the present Appellants we must assume that none of them took any part in the actual planning of the offences or in the forcible abduction. In particular we must proceed on the assumption that the first Appellant, who drove the motor-car, was unaware of what was happening until he was part of the way to the New Territories. The learned judge did not, as we think, make any finding as to that and he was of opinion that it made no difference whether he knew or did not know, for he used the phrase "even though it were innocently at the beginning". In our view it makes a great deal of difference whether he was innocent in the beginning or not. The first Appellant (the driver) and the second Appellant (the writer of the ransom note) both took what could be regarded as an active part in what went on although it may be said that the first Appellant was acting unwillingly. When he did discover what was happening it was open to him to stop the car, but it is perhaps understandable that he did not do that: his real fault lay in not going at once to reveal the kidnapping and the part that he had played in it to the police. Similarly, the second Appellant was acting to some extent unwillingly. He also (and more especially he, because he was acquainted with the girl) ought to have gone to the police. The other two Appellants - the third Appellant being the boy responsible for the hut and the fourth Appellant who was merely one of those who at one stage assisted in guarding the girl - played a part which we think is barely distinguishable from the other two Appellants, but the part played by all the Appellants was clearly distinguishable, in our view, from that played by the first Defendant. 4. We sincerely hope that nothing we say here will lead anybody to believe that this was anything but a very serious matter indeed, but we have come to the conclusion that the sentences passed on these Appellants were heavier than the justice of the matter required. We think that the disapproval of society and of the court will be sufficiently indicated if we substitute in each case for the sentences passed one of two years' imprisonment and we so order. 5th May 1975. Representation: |