WONG SIU-PING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

CACC000804/1975

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.804 OF 1975

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

 

BETWEEN:
	WONG Siu-Ping	Appellants
	LEUNG Chuk-Kei
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins and Pickering. JJ.

Date of Judgment: 27th November, 1975.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The two appellants were found guilty of blackmailing a 16 year old call girl. The first appellant was sentenced to four years' imprisonment; the second appellant was sentenced to three years' imprisonment.

2. The first appellant's appeal against his conviction was dismissed. Both appellants appealed against their sentence.

3. The two appellants were engaged in the business of loan sharking. The victim of the blackmail borrowed a sum of money from the first appellant at a very high rate of interest. The second appellant was known to her as the person who was responsible for collecting any money outstanding and owed to the first appellant. He can fairly be described as the strong-armed man of the first appellant.

4. The victim failed to pay the very extortionate interest due on the loan to the first appellant. By the original agreement this meant that she had not only to repay the loan with interest but also a heavy penalty as well.

5. On a day early in June 1975 the two appellants, together with another henchman of the first appellant, visited the victim. She was threatened with dire consequences to herself if she did not repay the amount then outstanding. It was decided to look for the "elder brother" or protector of the victim, who it was hoped would settle the debt of the victim. The two appellants forced the victim to accompany them from place to place during the search. The protector was eventually found and took the victim back to the premises where she lodged.

6. The offence of blackmail is one of very wide scope. Counsel for the first appellant pointed out that the victim in this case was a call girl and knew what she was doing very well when she obtained the loan. She also knew the consequences of failure to repay, and acknowledged at all times that she did owe the first appellant both the loan and the penalty. Further, that there was no physical violence used on the victim, though violence was threatened.

7. We think that in the peculiar circumstances of the case the sentences passed on the appellants are excessive. At the time of the commission of the offence the first appellant was serving as a sergeant in the Royal Hong Kong police Force. And, of course, he will be dismissed from that post and lose any pension rights he may have earned in consequence of his conviction.

8. In the event, we allow the appeal to the extent that the sentence of the first appellant is reduced to a term of two years' imprisonment and the sentence of the second appellant is reduced to a term of eighteen months' imprisonment.

 

 

	(Geoffrey Briggs)
	President.

 

Representation:

Eddis (J. Ip & Co.) for 1st appellant.

2nd appellant in person.

Polson for crown.