The Queen v. Lee Kwok Leung

Case No.

Court

Date13 Oct 1988

Judge—

Case Document

100%

CACC000123A/1988

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	1988, No. 123
	(Criminal)

BETWEEN

	THE QUEEN

	and

	LEE KWOK-LEUNG (D3)

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

Coram: Hon. Power, Penlington, JJA. & Bewley, J.

Date of hearing: 13th October 1988

Date of delivery of judgment: 13th October, 1988

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

JUDGMENT

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

Bewley, J.

1. The applicant was convicted on two counts of blackmail by Judge Cameron in the District Court together with two codefendants. All were sentenced to three years imprisonment.

2. Kwok Man Bun had lost money gambling in Macau. He was lent various sums of money by the three defendants over a period of several days at 10% per day interest. This money he also lost and was unable to repay. He was physically assaulted by the three defendants and was told to phone his family in Hong Kong to get the money.

3. Several phone calls were made to his family in Hong Kong, in the course of which all three defendants spoke to Kwok's mother and sister, who were told to pay the sum of $7,500 into various bank accounts, or Kwok would bet brown off Taipa bridge. They agreed to provide the money but told the callers that they would have to collect it at their tome. However, they alerted the police and, when the defendants arrived to collect the money, they were arrested.

4. All three defendants were refused leave to appeal against conviction. This applicant's application to appeal against sentence was adjourned to enable him to seek legal assistance but he now appears in person

5. 2nd defendant also applied for leave to appeal against sentence, but his application was dismissed on 9th September, when Silke, V.-P., giving the judgment of the court, said :-

"All three applicants were involved very much to the same decree. As at present advised, I see no reason to differentiate between theta. In the circumstances of this case, three years is by no means manifestly excessive."

6. 1st defendant was aged 21 and had three previous convictions 2nd defendant was 33 and had a minor conviction connected with a massage establishment. This applicant is. now 24 and has a clear record. In spite of this, we see no reason to distingish between the three defendants It is admittedly a severe sentence for a first ender but this offence is a prevalent one and very serious. We consider that three years is a proper sentence in such cases. For these reasons, the application is dismissed.

Representation:

Mr. I.G. Cross, Assistant Crown Prosecutor, for Respondent/Crown.

Applicant in person.