HKSAR v. TANG KWOK HING

DCCC1057/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1057 OF 2009

———————-

HKSAR
v.
Tang Kwok-hing

———————-

Before:

H H Judge Geiser

Date:

5 May 2010 at 11.07 am

Present:

Mr Jones Tsui, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Chan Kwan-wing, of Lee & Co., for the Defendant

Offence:

(1)&(2) Blackmail (勒索罪)
(3) Claiming to be a member of a triad society (聲稱是三合會社團的成員)
(4) Common assault (普通襲擊)

—————————–

Reasons for Sentence

—————————–

1. Defendant, you have been found guilty, after trial, of two offences of blackmail, contrary to section 23(1)(3) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210, Laws of Hong Kong, an offence of claiming to be a member of a triad society, contrary to section 20(2) of the Societies Ordinance, Cap. 151, Laws of Hong Kong, and an offence of common assault.

2. The offences arise out of a dispute that you had with PW1 and PW2 and their company Forever Success Investment Limited relatingto their development of land which adjoined land belonging to your father at Hung Uk Tsuen.

3. The offences took place between June and October of 2008 and involved yourself behaving outrageously, in a loutish manner, threateningand blackmailing PW1 and PW2, resulting in the first three offences, and ended up in October by you assaulting PW1, that being thesubject matter of the 4th offence.

4. I have received and read the background report that I ordered, and I have also read the letters of support submitted on your behalf.What is clear is that these offences are completely out of character. You have led a law-abiding life until the commission of thepresent offences, and I can assure you that it gives me no pleasure whatsoever to have to sentence you this morning.

5. In sentencing you, however, I do take account of these letters of support and all that has been put forward on your behalf by wayof mitigation. Offences such as this are serious and have no place in a civilised society such as Hong Kong. Behaviour such as thatdisplayed by yourself in the commission of these offences will inevitably lead to an immediate custodial sentence despite your hithertogood character.

6. On the 1st charge of blackmail, the most lenient sentence I can impose is one of 15 months’ imprisonment, and I so sentence you.

7. On the 2nd charge of blackmail, I also impose a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment. Whilst I accept from your counsel that thereis a link between these two charges, the second blackmail is a completely separate incident occurring some three months later involvinga different victim, and I therefore order the sentence on the 2nd charge to run consecutively to the sentence of 15 months on the1st charge.

8. On the 3rd charge, I impose a sentence of 9 months’ imprisonment. This is ordered to run concurrently to the sentence of 15 monthson the 2nd charge.

9. On the 4th charge of common assault, I impose a sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment, which is ordered to run consecutively to thesentence on the 1st charge, arriving at a total sentence of 2 years 9 months’ imprisonment in all.

H H Judge Geiser
District Judge

Defendant’s application for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed by Court of Appeal. Please refer to CACC161/2010 dated 1December 2010