A A
HCCC 176/2023
[2024] HKCFI 1265
B B
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
C COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE C
CRIMINAL CASE NO 176 OF 2023
D D
-----------------
E HKSAR E
v
F F
Ho Lin-chun
G G
-----------------
H Before: DHCJ Woodcock H
Date: 15 April 2024 at 10.19 am
Present: Mr Ira Lui, ADPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
I Mr Yeung Shak-nung, instructed by Eric Yu & Co, for the I
accused
J Offence: (1) & (2) Forcible detention of a person with intent to J
procure a ransom for her liberation (將某人強行禁錮而意圖取
得用以交換釋放該人的贖金)
K K
---------------------------------
L Transcript of the Audio Recording L
of the Sentence in the above Case
---------------------------------
M M
COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court to
N two counts of forcible detention of a person with intent to N
procure a ransom for her liberation, contrary to section 42
of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212.
O O
The defendant was committed for sentence on 3 July 2023 and
P today confirms his pleas as well as his agreement to the P
Summary of Facts.
Q The Facts Q
On 8 December 2021, the defendant, together with a person
R wanted by the police, by force, detained in Charge 1 a R
Filipina national against her will and in Charge 2 a 20-
S month-old baby girl with intent to procure a ransom for the S
liberation of both these victims.
T The first victim was a foreign domestic helper employed in T
Hong Kong by the parents of the second victim. On the
material day, she was taking the baby girl under her care to
U U
school. She was walking from home in Pokfulam to the
CRT24/15.4.2024/AB 1 HCCC 176/2023(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
nursery. As she walked along Victoria Road, she walked past
a black seven-seater vehicle parked by the side of the road.
B The first victim was suddenly grabbed by the defendant B
around her waist. He also covered her mouth with one hand
and dragged her into the vehicle through the open sliding
C door, overpowering her. C
D
The defendant tied up her limbs with zip ties and put a hood D
over her head. She was pressed to the ground and prevented
from standing. When she eventually pushed the hood up, she
E saw she was in the back seat or back row of the seven-seater E
vehicle whilst the defendant was sat in the middle row with
the baby girl still in her stroller inside the vehicle. The
F vehicle drove away. And there was another man driving, the F
wanted suspect, who spoke to her in English. He told her
G they were robbers and she would have to cooperate. She was G
asked for the name and telephone number of her employer.
H This male also asked her about her employer’s company. The H
first victim told him that her employer was not rich. That
male nevertheless offered to pay her 5 per cent if she
I cooperated. He mentioned the figure 200 million in English. I
This must have been a reference to a ransom to be demanded.
J The defendant put the hood back over this first victim’s J
head after this conversation. She could not see where they
went, but after a while they stopped and she was led inside
K a container. K
Inside this container, she was untied and told to change
L L
into some clothes she was given by the defendant. After she
changed into those clothes, she was tied up again with zip
M ties at her wrists and ankles with her hands tied behind her M
back. Then the child was brought into the same container
and put on her thighs. Both victims were tied together with
N a rope. The first victim was hooded again. She was told in N
English there would be a two-hour wait. She and the child
were then left alone inside this container.
O O
Sometime later, the defendant and the other man returned and
P lifted up the two victims and moved them back into the same P
vehicle. They were both placed in the rear compartment.
The first victim could see that the baby girl’s hands were
Q tied together with zip ties. Q
They arrived at another location and were lifted out of the
R R
vehicle and walked to a second container. The police found
this container at a later stage. It was in Tai Wo Village,
S Pat Heung, Yuen Long. Both victims were again tied together S
on the floor of this second container. Both men left them
in the container and closed the door.
T T
The first victim managed to untie her hands, remove the hood
U
over her head, take off the tape covering her mouth and U
untie her legs. She took the child and left the container.
CRT24/15.4.2024/AB 2 HCCC 176/2023(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
She herself climbed on top of the container and shouted for
help. The defendant suddenly appeared and climbed up but
B was pushed off by this first victim after a struggle. B
Villagers appeared and defendant ran away. The villagers
helped the two victims and the police were called.
C C
Both the victims were taken to hospital. For the first
D
victim, she had marks on her wrists and feet from being zip D
tied. She had redness over the right side of her face as
well as an abrasion. The child had zip tie marks on her
E hands and wrists. Both were released from hospital that E
same day. I have been told today they have no psychological
or physical long-term trauma.
F F
During this incident, the first victim’s employers, the
G parents of the second victim, had not received any phone G
calls demanding any ransom for their release, neither knew
the defendant personally.
H H
That seven-seater vehicle was traced by the police on
various CCTV cameras and from the time of the kidnapping to
I the time the police were called, the vehicle registration I
number plate had been changed three times. Clearly, a plan
J to evade detection. J
The defendant himself was arrested in the early hours of the
K morning, the day after the kidnapping when he was returning K
the seven-seater vehicle to its owner. The police had
already traced that vehicle and were waiting for the
L L
defendant.
M Mitigation M
Mr Yeung has provided me with written mitigation in advance.
N He has said all he can say on behalf of the defendant. The N
defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty. He is a
45-year-old man with three previous convictions between 2001
O O
and 2022. All convictions resulted in financial penalties.
I have heard he is married with a child himself who is now
P nearly four years old. I have seen a letter from his mother P
expressing her shock at the commission of these offences but
asking for mercy and leniency.
Q Q
At the time of his arrest, he was unemployed. I have been
told he was in financial difficulty which led to the
R R
commission of these offences. He owed the wanted man some
money, adding up to about $40,000. This wanted man, Eric,
S the defendant believed was a debt collector. S
He asked the defendant to help him abduct someone in return
T for writing off his debt. The defendant assumed that the T
abduction was related to debt collection. He thought the
U
first victim, the foreign domestic helper, was a debtor when U
he bundled her into the vehicle and tied her up. Only after
CRT24/15.4.2024/AB 3 HCCC 176/2023(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
they set off did he realise that Eric was referring to a
ransom when he asked the first victim for the contact
B details of her employer. Even if this is true, it makes B
little difference to the defendant’s culpability.
C Sentencing C
D
This offence, forcible detention of a person with intent to D
demand a ransom, is a very serious offence. It is an
offence punishable by life imprisonment. There are no
E guideline tariffs nor has the Court of Appeal attempted to E
lay down guideline tariffs for this kind of crime.
Sentences will be fact specific. The circumstances of each
F case will be looked at individually. F
G The Court of Appeal in previous cases has pointed out a G
number of factors relevant to sentence, which include
thorough planning in advance, the number of people involved
H in the detention, the targeted person’s age, gender, H
personal situation, whether the offenders were armed at the
time, whether the victims were injured or distressed, how
I long the victim or victims were detained, treated and I
released, and lastly whether a ransom was paid.
J J
Mr Yeung, for the defendant, has cited examples of sentences
that range from a starting point of 10 years and 8 months
K after trial to 14 years. In HKSAR v Yuk Man Chun and K
Another, CACC 420/2007, after trial, two kidnappers were
sentenced to 10 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. In that
L L
case, the victim was a 22-year-old son of a wealthy
businessman.
M M
In HKSAR v Mohammad Nadim [2010] 1 HKC 281, the Court of
Appeal found a 14-year starting point appropriate for the
N kidnapping for a seven-year-old boy who was blindfolded and N
his mouth taped up and his hands tied up and was at the end
put in a bag in the boot of a vehicle. No weapons or
O O
violence were used at the time of the forcible detention and
he was detained for about 15 hours.
P P
Prosecution has also referred me to several cases which show
a range of sentences and also reiterates that there are no
Q guideline tariffs for this kind of offence. For example, in Q
HKSAR v Chang Sai Wah Brandi, CACC 342/2008, a 14-year
sentence after trial was upheld for the forcible detention
R R
of a 73-year-old doctor who was detained. There had been an
attempt to tie him up and put him in a box. He had
S struggled fiercely and somehow managed to fight off three S
men.
T In HKSAR v Leung Man Kwong, CACC 57/2001, a seven-year-old T
boy was snatched from a vehicle driven by his family’s
U
driver by three armed and masked men who blocked their U
vehicle. The three men carried what looked like pistols and
CRT24/15.4.2024/AB 4 HCCC 176/2023(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
one held a hammer. He was taken and later found by the
police stuffed inside a suitcase. He had been blindfolded
B but had no other signs of injuries. The Court of Appeal B
upheld a starting point of 15 years’ imprisonment.
C Sentences in these cases I have been referred to have been C
decided on the circumstances and facts of each individual
D
case. What is relevant here in this case in particular is D
the fact that the second victim was only 20 months old when
her stroller was grabbed and put in the vehicle before being
E driven away. She does not appear to have ever been safely E
strapped into a car seat or a seatbelt.
F Although no weapons were brandished or specific violence F
used when the first victim was forced into the vehicle and
G the child stroller picked up and put in it, the first victim G
was tied up and hooded whilst struggling in front of the
child. The child was sat in her stroller confronted by two
H strange men and her carer in distress. H
At one stage, when the first victim was taken into the first
I container, she was separated from this child. This child I
had her hands tied together with cable ties for some
J inexplicable reason. She must have been very frightened at J
that time. She was then tied to her carer who she could not
even see to comfort her because her carer had a hood over
K her head. The first victim could not talk to the child or K
comfort her because she had her mouth taped up.
L L
The first victim was very brave when she managed to free
herself, take the child out of the second container and
M climb up the container herself to find help. She even M
managed to fight off the defendant who climbed up to get
her. Her actions meant that their ordeal did not last long,
N but if she had not acted so courageously, the outcome may N
have been very different. It is only because of her bravery
that the police became involved within hours of them being
O O
snatched off the road.
P Another relevant factor is that there was clearly much P
planning involved in these offences. The defendant was seen
buying the zip ties used to tie up the victims three days
Q earlier. In his phone were many messages showing prior Q
preparation of some of the false vehicle license plates used
that day. The vehicle used was also borrowed, so it could
R R
not be traced directly to the defendant or his accomplice.
They had obviously scouted out two separate containers to
S hide the victims inside. S
Having considered what I heard in mitigation and those
T particular facts I have identified as relevant to this T
ordeal suffered by both victims, I find a starting point of
U
14 years’ imprisonment for each offence appropriate. U
CRT24/15.4.2024/AB 5 HCCC 176/2023(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity
means he will benefit from a discount of one-third from that
B starting point. After that discount is applied, the B
sentences are reduced to 9 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
C The defendant is sentenced to 9 years and 4 months’ C
imprisonment for both counts, Count 1 and Count 2. I order
D
both sentences to be served concurrently. D
Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to a total of 9
E years and 4 months. E
F F
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT24/15.4.2024/AB 6 HCCC 176/2023(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
HCCC 176/2023
[2024] HKCFI 1265
B B
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
C COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE C
CRIMINAL CASE NO 176 OF 2023
D D
-----------------
E HKSAR E
v
F F
Ho Lin-chun
G G
-----------------
H Before: DHCJ Woodcock H
Date: 15 April 2024 at 10.19 am
Present: Mr Ira Lui, ADPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
I Mr Yeung Shak-nung, instructed by Eric Yu & Co, for the I
accused
J Offence: (1) & (2) Forcible detention of a person with intent to J
procure a ransom for her liberation (將某人強行禁錮而意圖取
得用以交換釋放該人的贖金)
K K
---------------------------------
L Transcript of the Audio Recording L
of the Sentence in the above Case
---------------------------------
M M
COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court to
N two counts of forcible detention of a person with intent to N
procure a ransom for her liberation, contrary to section 42
of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212.
O O
The defendant was committed for sentence on 3 July 2023 and
P today confirms his pleas as well as his agreement to the P
Summary of Facts.
Q The Facts Q
On 8 December 2021, the defendant, together with a person
R wanted by the police, by force, detained in Charge 1 a R
Filipina national against her will and in Charge 2 a 20-
S month-old baby girl with intent to procure a ransom for the S
liberation of both these victims.
T The first victim was a foreign domestic helper employed in T
Hong Kong by the parents of the second victim. On the
material day, she was taking the baby girl under her care to
U U
school. She was walking from home in Pokfulam to the
CRT24/15.4.2024/AB 1 HCCC 176/2023(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
nursery. As she walked along Victoria Road, she walked past
a black seven-seater vehicle parked by the side of the road.
B The first victim was suddenly grabbed by the defendant B
around her waist. He also covered her mouth with one hand
and dragged her into the vehicle through the open sliding
C door, overpowering her. C
D
The defendant tied up her limbs with zip ties and put a hood D
over her head. She was pressed to the ground and prevented
from standing. When she eventually pushed the hood up, she
E saw she was in the back seat or back row of the seven-seater E
vehicle whilst the defendant was sat in the middle row with
the baby girl still in her stroller inside the vehicle. The
F vehicle drove away. And there was another man driving, the F
wanted suspect, who spoke to her in English. He told her
G they were robbers and she would have to cooperate. She was G
asked for the name and telephone number of her employer.
H This male also asked her about her employer’s company. The H
first victim told him that her employer was not rich. That
male nevertheless offered to pay her 5 per cent if she
I cooperated. He mentioned the figure 200 million in English. I
This must have been a reference to a ransom to be demanded.
J The defendant put the hood back over this first victim’s J
head after this conversation. She could not see where they
went, but after a while they stopped and she was led inside
K a container. K
Inside this container, she was untied and told to change
L L
into some clothes she was given by the defendant. After she
changed into those clothes, she was tied up again with zip
M ties at her wrists and ankles with her hands tied behind her M
back. Then the child was brought into the same container
and put on her thighs. Both victims were tied together with
N a rope. The first victim was hooded again. She was told in N
English there would be a two-hour wait. She and the child
were then left alone inside this container.
O O
Sometime later, the defendant and the other man returned and
P lifted up the two victims and moved them back into the same P
vehicle. They were both placed in the rear compartment.
The first victim could see that the baby girl’s hands were
Q tied together with zip ties. Q
They arrived at another location and were lifted out of the
R R
vehicle and walked to a second container. The police found
this container at a later stage. It was in Tai Wo Village,
S Pat Heung, Yuen Long. Both victims were again tied together S
on the floor of this second container. Both men left them
in the container and closed the door.
T T
The first victim managed to untie her hands, remove the hood
U
over her head, take off the tape covering her mouth and U
untie her legs. She took the child and left the container.
CRT24/15.4.2024/AB 2 HCCC 176/2023(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
She herself climbed on top of the container and shouted for
help. The defendant suddenly appeared and climbed up but
B was pushed off by this first victim after a struggle. B
Villagers appeared and defendant ran away. The villagers
helped the two victims and the police were called.
C C
Both the victims were taken to hospital. For the first
D
victim, she had marks on her wrists and feet from being zip D
tied. She had redness over the right side of her face as
well as an abrasion. The child had zip tie marks on her
E hands and wrists. Both were released from hospital that E
same day. I have been told today they have no psychological
or physical long-term trauma.
F F
During this incident, the first victim’s employers, the
G parents of the second victim, had not received any phone G
calls demanding any ransom for their release, neither knew
the defendant personally.
H H
That seven-seater vehicle was traced by the police on
various CCTV cameras and from the time of the kidnapping to
I the time the police were called, the vehicle registration I
number plate had been changed three times. Clearly, a plan
J to evade detection. J
The defendant himself was arrested in the early hours of the
K morning, the day after the kidnapping when he was returning K
the seven-seater vehicle to its owner. The police had
already traced that vehicle and were waiting for the
L L
defendant.
M Mitigation M
Mr Yeung has provided me with written mitigation in advance.
N He has said all he can say on behalf of the defendant. The N
defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty. He is a
45-year-old man with three previous convictions between 2001
O O
and 2022. All convictions resulted in financial penalties.
I have heard he is married with a child himself who is now
P nearly four years old. I have seen a letter from his mother P
expressing her shock at the commission of these offences but
asking for mercy and leniency.
Q Q
At the time of his arrest, he was unemployed. I have been
told he was in financial difficulty which led to the
R R
commission of these offences. He owed the wanted man some
money, adding up to about $40,000. This wanted man, Eric,
S the defendant believed was a debt collector. S
He asked the defendant to help him abduct someone in return
T for writing off his debt. The defendant assumed that the T
abduction was related to debt collection. He thought the
U
first victim, the foreign domestic helper, was a debtor when U
he bundled her into the vehicle and tied her up. Only after
CRT24/15.4.2024/AB 3 HCCC 176/2023(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
they set off did he realise that Eric was referring to a
ransom when he asked the first victim for the contact
B details of her employer. Even if this is true, it makes B
little difference to the defendant’s culpability.
C Sentencing C
D
This offence, forcible detention of a person with intent to D
demand a ransom, is a very serious offence. It is an
offence punishable by life imprisonment. There are no
E guideline tariffs nor has the Court of Appeal attempted to E
lay down guideline tariffs for this kind of crime.
Sentences will be fact specific. The circumstances of each
F case will be looked at individually. F
G The Court of Appeal in previous cases has pointed out a G
number of factors relevant to sentence, which include
thorough planning in advance, the number of people involved
H in the detention, the targeted person’s age, gender, H
personal situation, whether the offenders were armed at the
time, whether the victims were injured or distressed, how
I long the victim or victims were detained, treated and I
released, and lastly whether a ransom was paid.
J J
Mr Yeung, for the defendant, has cited examples of sentences
that range from a starting point of 10 years and 8 months
K after trial to 14 years. In HKSAR v Yuk Man Chun and K
Another, CACC 420/2007, after trial, two kidnappers were
sentenced to 10 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. In that
L L
case, the victim was a 22-year-old son of a wealthy
businessman.
M M
In HKSAR v Mohammad Nadim [2010] 1 HKC 281, the Court of
Appeal found a 14-year starting point appropriate for the
N kidnapping for a seven-year-old boy who was blindfolded and N
his mouth taped up and his hands tied up and was at the end
put in a bag in the boot of a vehicle. No weapons or
O O
violence were used at the time of the forcible detention and
he was detained for about 15 hours.
P P
Prosecution has also referred me to several cases which show
a range of sentences and also reiterates that there are no
Q guideline tariffs for this kind of offence. For example, in Q
HKSAR v Chang Sai Wah Brandi, CACC 342/2008, a 14-year
sentence after trial was upheld for the forcible detention
R R
of a 73-year-old doctor who was detained. There had been an
attempt to tie him up and put him in a box. He had
S struggled fiercely and somehow managed to fight off three S
men.
T In HKSAR v Leung Man Kwong, CACC 57/2001, a seven-year-old T
boy was snatched from a vehicle driven by his family’s
U
driver by three armed and masked men who blocked their U
vehicle. The three men carried what looked like pistols and
CRT24/15.4.2024/AB 4 HCCC 176/2023(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
one held a hammer. He was taken and later found by the
police stuffed inside a suitcase. He had been blindfolded
B but had no other signs of injuries. The Court of Appeal B
upheld a starting point of 15 years’ imprisonment.
C Sentences in these cases I have been referred to have been C
decided on the circumstances and facts of each individual
D
case. What is relevant here in this case in particular is D
the fact that the second victim was only 20 months old when
her stroller was grabbed and put in the vehicle before being
E driven away. She does not appear to have ever been safely E
strapped into a car seat or a seatbelt.
F Although no weapons were brandished or specific violence F
used when the first victim was forced into the vehicle and
G the child stroller picked up and put in it, the first victim G
was tied up and hooded whilst struggling in front of the
child. The child was sat in her stroller confronted by two
H strange men and her carer in distress. H
At one stage, when the first victim was taken into the first
I container, she was separated from this child. This child I
had her hands tied together with cable ties for some
J inexplicable reason. She must have been very frightened at J
that time. She was then tied to her carer who she could not
even see to comfort her because her carer had a hood over
K her head. The first victim could not talk to the child or K
comfort her because she had her mouth taped up.
L L
The first victim was very brave when she managed to free
herself, take the child out of the second container and
M climb up the container herself to find help. She even M
managed to fight off the defendant who climbed up to get
her. Her actions meant that their ordeal did not last long,
N but if she had not acted so courageously, the outcome may N
have been very different. It is only because of her bravery
that the police became involved within hours of them being
O O
snatched off the road.
P Another relevant factor is that there was clearly much P
planning involved in these offences. The defendant was seen
buying the zip ties used to tie up the victims three days
Q earlier. In his phone were many messages showing prior Q
preparation of some of the false vehicle license plates used
that day. The vehicle used was also borrowed, so it could
R R
not be traced directly to the defendant or his accomplice.
They had obviously scouted out two separate containers to
S hide the victims inside. S
Having considered what I heard in mitigation and those
T particular facts I have identified as relevant to this T
ordeal suffered by both victims, I find a starting point of
U
14 years’ imprisonment for each offence appropriate. U
CRT24/15.4.2024/AB 5 HCCC 176/2023(1)/Sentence
V V
A A
The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity
means he will benefit from a discount of one-third from that
B starting point. After that discount is applied, the B
sentences are reduced to 9 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
C The defendant is sentenced to 9 years and 4 months’ C
imprisonment for both counts, Count 1 and Count 2. I order
D
both sentences to be served concurrently. D
Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to a total of 9
E years and 4 months. E
F F
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT24/15.4.2024/AB 6 HCCC 176/2023(1)/Sentence
V V