Hksar v Fong King Choi

Court:Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:CACC319/2018
Judgment Date:25 Apr 2019
Neutral Citation:[2019] HKCA 446
CACC319/2018 HKSAR v. FONG KING CHOI

CACC 319/2018

[2019] HKCA 446

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 319 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO 90 OF 2018)

_______________

BETWEEN
HKSAR Respondent

and

FONG King-choi (方琼財) Applicant

_______________

Before: Hon Zervos JA in Court

Date of Hearing: 25 April 2019

Date of Judgment: 25 April 2019

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. In the early morning of 30 October 2017, the applicant entered a 7-Eleven store, claiming to a female member of staff that he was collecting protection money, “tor tei”, while thumping the cashier table. He did this repeatedly when the female store manager confronted him. He demanded that she hand over to him $100 which she refused to do. He left the store shouting loudly and kicking things on the street outside. Throughout his outburst, customers were present or entering the store. He returned to the store and shouted at the manager, swearing and threatening her, saying that he would come back another time. He then took two cans of beer and knocked them down on the cashier table. As he was about to walk out of the store, the manager insisted that he pay for the beer. He put $20 on a shelf and walked out of the store shouting and swearing at the manager. The actual cost of the two cans of beer was $12.90. He remained outside the store, shouting loudly abusive comments at the manager. At one stage, he claimed he would bring his friends to the store, but the manager and her staff ignored him as he walked off and loitered outside the store.

2. The duration of this incident was from 6:19am to 6:25am, and at 6:28am he was intercepted and arrested by the police. The incident was captured on the store’s CCTV camera.

3. On 9 October 2018, the applicant pleaded guilty to the offence of blackmail in relation to this incident before District Court Judge E Yip (“the judge”). It was alleged that he made an unwarranted demand of $100 from the manager with menaces.

4. In mitigation, it was submitted on the applicant’s behalf that he was 36 years of age and residing with his parents. It was explained that he had consumed a lot of alcohol prior to the incident because he was upset with his girlfriend. It was further submitted that there was no actual violence or threat of violence, and that he acted alone...

To continue reading

Request your trial