HKSAR v. Chan Wing Go

DCCC 660/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 660 OF 2014

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.The defendant has been convicted after trial of one charge of blackmail contrary to section 23(1) and (3) of the Theft Ordinance Cap 210.

2.Blackmail is a serious offence as is reflected by the maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years as prescribed by the section.

3.I do not propose to recite the facts of this case again suffice it to say this was an extortion of money coupled with a threat to prevent PW1 conducting his business made in a fierce manner and followed by a very serious threat to chop him to death and burn his house if he tipped off anyone.  A reasonable person would have been frightened by this and PW1 clearly was.

4.Mr Davies has said in mitigation this is not the most serious of blackmail cases. I agree to the extent that no weapons were used or displayed in making the demand and the defendant was on his own.  Nevertheless as said above PW1 was clearly frightened and the demand was made in circumstances where PW1 had to pay otherwise he could not continue with his business at the site.

5.In R v Hadjou (1989) 11 Cr App R 29 it was said blackmail was one of the most serious offences in the calendar of offences with deterrence as perhaps the most important part of the sentence coming just after the question of punishment.

6.In The Queen v Lau See Kau CACC 573 of 1995 it was held that sentences of very much longer than three years are often clearly appropriate.

7.Although there is no direct evidence of the defendant claiming or linking himself to a triad society in making the demand the language he used asserting the construction site was his territory and demanding a protection fee does have triad overtones.

8.In HKSAR v Tam Yun Chuen (2009) HKCU 1357 the Court of Appeal held for triad related blackmail a sentence of 4 years after trial was appropriate.

9.The defendant has one previous conviction for blackmail and a number of other offences but the last conviction was in 2002.  I am told he lives with his girlfriend and has two young children by her and two older children from his former marriage.

10.Had there been direct evidence linking the blackmail to triad related activities I would have adopted that starting point of 4 years.

11.However in all the circumstances I will adopt a starting point of 3 years.

12.There is nothing which has been advanced in mitigation which would serve to reduce that starting point.  Accordingly I sentence you to a term of 3 years imprisonment.