HKSAR v. Kwok Tin Lun

DCCC362/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 362 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Kwok Tin-lun, you have pleaded guilty to three charges of blackmail.

2.The victim of all three charges was a young man who was lawfully carrying on business, operating an Internet café in Parkes Street, Yau Ma Tei. 

3.In May last year, about six months after the victim had started operating his business, you went to his premises and demanded that he pay you a protection fee and allow you to use his computers to play computer games without charge.  This demand by you is the subject of Charge 1 before this court.

4.You reinforced your demand by saying that if the victim did not pay a protection fee, it would mean that he did not respect your protector, Miu Kai Chi.  I am satisfied that those words were said by you to frighten the victim and to suggest that you had triad connections and that failure to pay would result in others taking action against him or his business.  Despite this threat, the victim had enough courage to resist your demand and call the police.  When the police arrived, you denied having asked for protection money and the victim decided not to pursue the matter.

5.Undeterred, however, you returned a few days later and insisted that the victim allow you to play computer games without charge.  In order to avoid trouble, the victim agreed, and over the ensuing months, you were allowed to use the computers at the premises without charge. 

6.The victim was spared your attentions between 29 July 2011 when you were sentenced to detention in a drug addiction treatment centre and your release on 30 January this year.  Shortly after your release, on 18 February this year, the date referred to in the 2nd and 3rd charges, you did not simply come alone to play computer games without charge but you brought several others to do so.  This time, the victim told you that you would be no longer allowed to play computer games free of charge.  Your response was to demand $1,500 each month as a protection fee.  The victim refused.  This demand is the subject of the 2nd charge.

7.Following the victim’s refusal, you made a call to Singh Gurmail, the 2nd defendant, summoning him to the Internet café. He arrived with several other men.  This clearly was an attempt to intimidate the victim.  You and the 2nd defendant then spoke to the victim about your earlier demand for a protection fee.  What was said to him is the subject of the 3rd charge.  The 2nd defendant suggested that instead of the $1,500 each month demanded by you, the victim pay $1,000 per month.  You threatened to disturb the victim’s staff and damage his computers if he refused to pay.  The victim had little choice but to pay you $1,000 which he handed over to you.  You claimed that you would return each month to collect protection fees.

8.You cannot claim in mitigation to be a man of previous good character.  You have been before the courts on 13 previous occasions for a variety of offences.  I bear in mind that this is the first occasion you have been before the courts for an offence of blackmail.

9.Blackmail of this kind is a serious offence. Citizens of Hong Kong are entitled to conduct their businesses without intimidation and threats of violence.  What makes it particularly serious is that it is an offence that victims are often too frightened to report.  The courts are bound to make it clear by the sentences they pass that this sort of conduct will not be tolerated.

10.In considering the appropriate sentence, I have borne in mind everything said by Miss Lin on your behalf.  As I have already said, I bear in mind that you have not been convicted of a similar offence before.  I also bear in mind that the only money handed over by the victim was the $1,000 on the last occasion.  However, it was the courage of the victim in reporting the matter to the police that limited his loss to that sum.  You had demanded that he pay a similar sum each month in the future.

11.I also take into account that, although in committing the first offence you suggested that you had triad connections, there is no evidence that you did have such connection.

12.Insofar as Charges 1 and 2 are concerned, I adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment.  Charge 3 falls into a more serious category.  You had summoned others, including the 2nd defendant, to intimidate the victim.  You made explicit threats to disturb his staff and damage his computers.  I am satisfied that the appropriate starting point for that offence is 3 and a half years’ imprisonment.

13.The most significant mitigation in your case are your pleas of guilty, for which you are entitled to the usual discount of one-third.  Accordingly, I pass sentence as follows.  Charge 1: 2 years’ imprisonment; Charge 2: 2 years’ imprisonment; Charge 3: 28 months’ imprisonment.  All the sentences are to run concurrently with each other. Therefore, I have imposed sentences totalling 28 months on Charges 1, 2 and 3 before the court. 

14.In addition, I activate the suspended sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment imposed on you on 28 August 2010.  That sentence will run consecutively to the 28 months, Accordingly, the total sentence imposed on you today is one of 31 months’ imprisonment.