A A
B B
DCCC 325/2010
C IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE C
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
D CRIMINAL CASE NO. 325 OF 2010 D
____________
E HKSAR E
v
F F
CHAN Siu-kit (D1)
G CHU Ka-ko (D2) G
____________
H H
DCCC 326/2010
I IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE I
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
J CRIMINAL CASE NO. 326 OF 2010 J
____________
K HKSAR K
v
L L
CHAN Siu-kit (D1)
M LO Ka-kit (D2) M
LIU Man-chung (D3)
N ____________ N
O DCCC 340/2010 O
P
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE P
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 340 OF 2010
Q Q
____________
HKSAR
R R
v
S CHAN Hong-yu (D1) S
CHAN Siu-kit (D2)
T T
TANG Hiu-fei (D3)
U U
V V
2
A A
B B
Before: Deputy District Judge Dufton
C
Date : 14 February 2011 C
Present: Mr Jones Tsui, Senior Public Prosecutor (Ag.), for HKSAR
D
Mr Terry Kan instructed by Messrs TKC Lawyers assigned by D
the Director of Legal Aid, for CHAN Siu-kit
E Offences: Conspiracy to rob (串謀搶劫) E
Possession of offensive weapons（管有攻擊性武器）
F
Theft (盜竊罪) F
Wounding (傷人)
G
Conspiracy to wound with intent (串謀有意圖而傷人) G
REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF CHAN Siu-kit
H H
1. CHAN Siu-kit pleads guilty to various charges arising from an
I I
undercover operation codenamed “sidefilter”, where PC 4026 (PW1)
J infiltrated the Sun Yee On triad society, which operation turned overt in J
September 2009.
K K
L 2. In DCCC 325/2010 he pleads guilty to one charge of conspiracy L
to rob, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance and sections 159A
M M
and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance (charge 2), one charge of possession
N of offensive weapons, contrary to section 17 of the Summary Offences N
Ordinance (charge 8) and one charge of theft, contrary to section 9 of the
O O
Theft Ordinance (charge 10); in DCCC 326/2010 he pleads guilty to one
P charge of wounding, contrary to section 19 of the Offences against the P
Person Ordinance (charge 1) and one charge of conspiracy to wound with
Q Q
intent, contrary to section 17 of the Offences against the Person
R R
Ordinance and sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance
S
(charge 2); and in DCCC 340/2010 he pleads guilty to one further charge S
of conspiracy to wound with intent (charge 3).
T T
U U
V V
3
A A
B B
3. Full particulars of the offences are set out in the facts admitted by
C the defendant. The following is a brief summary of the offences. C
D D
DCCC 325/2010
E E
4. In June 2009 when the defendant found out his girlfriend had
F F
dated another male he was furious and threatened to beat him up. The
G defendant recruited PW1 to help him. D2 also agreed to help, suggesting G
that they rob the male as well. D2 also said he could smuggle stun guns
H H
and extendable batons from the Mainland to use in robbing the male. The
I defendant preferred to use batons. Stun guns and batons were smuggled I
into Hong Kong for use in the robbery, with D2 giving one baton to the
J J
defendant. On arrest in September 2009 six extendable batons were
K found at the defendant’s home. The defendant admitted agreeing to rob K
the male but said the plan was never carried out (charges 2 & 8).
L L
5. At the beginning of September while attending a birthday party at
M M
a bar in Tsim Sha Tsui the defendant told PW1 that he had picked up a
N N
mobile phone from the floor of the table next to where they were drinking.
O
Later the defendant sold the mobile phone for HK$2000 (charge 10). O
P P
DCCC 326/2010
Q Q
6. On the 30th July 2009 the defendant, together with about 10
R males, took part in kicking and punching the new boyfriend of D3’s ex- R
girlfriend. The boyfriend suffered a 1cm laceration to his forehead
S S
(charge 1). I am told the boyfriend has no permanent disability but does
T T
have a scar on his forehead as a result of the attack.
U U
V V
4
A A
B B
7. The next day a group of 10 males, all armed with water pipes,
C attacked another male, who as a result suffered fracture to two of his C
fingers and multiple scalp lacerations. The extent of his injuries can be
D D
seen from the photographs shown to the court. There were at least six
E wounds to his head which required suturing. Fortunately considering this E
was an attack with weapons to the head, I am again told the male has no
F F
permanent disability as a result of the attack. On arrest the defendant
G admitted he had agreed to join in the attack of a 14K youngster who had G
grudges over staring affairs the previous night. The defendant armed
H H
with an iron pipe did not take part, as the victim had already been
I attacked by the time he arrived (charge 2). I
J J
DCCC 340/2010
K K
8. On the 6th July 2009 the defendant and PW1 were asked by D1
L L
to attack a drug trafficker who had been very rude to him. They met at
M D1’s home on the 8th July when they planned to attack the male with M
knives but to chop him on his body and limbs only and not above the
N N
neck, so that the blows would not be fatal. On the 9th July the wife of D1
O took the defendant and PW1 to the building where the male resided. The O
plan to attack the male was however postponed (charge 3).
P P
Q 9. In passing sentence I take into account everything said on behalf Q
of the defendant by Mr Kan, including the role played by the defendant in
R R
the various offences and that prior to these offences the defendant had a
S clear record. I have also read all the letters submitted by the defendant S
his wife, past employers and colleagues.
T T
U U
V V
5
A A
B B
Starting points
DCCC 325/2010
C C
D 10. In R v MO Kwong-sang [1981] HKLR 610 the Court of Appeal D
held that the appropriate sentence for an ordinary case of armed robbery
E E
where a knife or other dangerous weapon is carried and displayed is
F 5 years and 7 years should be considered where physical violence is used. F
The sentence to be imposed must however be appropriate for conspiracy
G G
to commit robbery (see HKSAR v LIN Jinhuang CACC 171/2008).
H Whilst weapons were obtained for use in the robbery the plan was not H
carried out. The defendant says that out of his own conscience he
I I
decided not to carry out the plan. Taking into account no actual robbery
J took place I take as my starting point 3 years imprisonment. For J
possession of six extendable batons I am satisfied the appropriate starting
K K
point is 12 months imprisonment and for the opportune theft of a mobile
L phone 6 months imprisonment. L
M M
DCCC 326/2010
N N
O
11. For wounding 19, involving 10 persons, no weapons and without O
serious injury I am satisfied a starting point of 1 year and 6 months
P P
imprisonment is appropriate. For conspiracy to wound with intent, also
Q involving 10 persons armed with water pipes, resulting in multiple Q
injuries but none of a permanent nature, I am satisfied a starting point of
R R
4 years imprisonment is appropriate. The fact the defendant did not
S actually participate in the attack is no ground to reduce the sentence as he S
was a willing party going to the scene, armed with a water pipe, intending
T T
to participate in the attack.
U U
V V
6
A A
B B
DCCC 340/2010
C C
12. Had the planned attack been carried out resulting in chop wounds
D D
to the body a sentence of no less than 5 years imprisonment would have
E been appropriate and may well have been substantially more depending E
on the severity of the injuries. Some steps were taken in preparation for
F F
an attack by viewing the building where the male resided. Whilst the
G attack was not carried out this was still contemplated having only been G
postponed. In the circumstances I take 4 years imprisonment as my
H H
starting point.
I I
13. The offences are set against the background that the defendant
J J
was involved with the Sun Yee On triad society. On the 21st December
K last year the defendant was sentenced by the Kowloon City Magistracy to K
a total of 9 months imprisonment for one offence of claiming to be a
L L
member of a triad society; three charges of acting as a member of a triad
M society; one charge of possession of an offensive weapon and one charge M
of attending a triad meeting.
N N
O 14. I have had the opportunity of looking at the case papers. The O
facts agreed by the defendant when he pleaded guilty to those charges on
P P
day 9 of the trial have been translated to me. A background report was
Q called for which I have also had the opportunity of reading. Q
R R
15. The offences occurred between April and September 2009.
S In summary in April 2009 the defendant welcomed PW1 as his brother in S
the Sun Yee On triad society and promised to render him support.
T T
In May, June and July 2009 the defendant assembled as part of a group to
U U
V V
7
A A
B B
seek revenge on others (“blowing the whistle” in triad jargon). The target
C of the May gathering could not be found. In June the defendant equipped C
himself with an extendable baton but again the targets could not be
D D
located. In July contact was made with one of the targets but attempts to
E lure him out failed. In September 2009 a triad meeting was held where E
one of the co-accused changed to be the follower of the defendant.
F F
G
Totality G
H H
16. Clearly the defendant was deeply involved in triad related matters
I and was more than willing, when the need arose, to participate in serious I
acts of violence. I am satisfied for the offences the defendant is before
J J
the court an overall starting point after trial of 9 years imprisonment is
K appropriate. K
L L
17. Giving full credit for the pleas of guilty the sentence to be served
M by the defendant is one of 6 years imprisonment. I am satisfied this is a M
meaningful discount from the maximum sentencing jurisdiction of this
N N
court of 7 years imprisonment, the prosecution having somewhat
O surprisingly agreed all three cases be heard together in the District Court. O
P P
18. The defendant is sentenced as follows:
Q Q
DCCC 325/2010
R R
S Charge 2 – 2 years imprisonment S
Charge 8 – 8 months imprisonment concurrent to charge 2; and
T T
Charge 10 – 4 months imprisonment concurrent to charges 2 & 8.
U U
V V
8
A A
B B
DCCC 326/2010
C C
Charge 1 – 1 year imprisonment; and
D D
Charge 2 – 2 years and 8 months imprisonment concurrent to charge 1;
E 2 years consecutive and 8 months concurrent to the sentence in E
DCCC 325/2010;
F F
G DCCC 340/2010 G
H H
Charge 3 – 2 years and 8 months imprisonment;
I 2 years consecutive and 8 months concurrent to the sentences in I
DCCC 325/2010 and DCCC 326/2010.
J J
K 19. I further order that the total sentence of 6 years imprisonment is K
to be served consecutive to the 9 month sentence the defendant is now
L L
serving. In my view the defendant was leniently dealt with in the
M Magistracy, in particular that all sentences were made to run concurrent M
(see for example HKSAR v SO Chi-wai & another CACC 358/2004,
N N
where the court commented that the making of part concurrent sentences
O was if anything lenient). I am satisfied a total sentence of 6 years and O
9 months imprisonment properly reflects the defendant’s criminality for
P P
all offences committed by him between April and September 2009.
Q Q
R R
S S
(D. J. DUFTON)
Deputy District Judge
T T
U U
V V