A A
B B
DCCC 478 & 838/2021 & 1007/2022 (Consolidated)
[2024] HKDC 436
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO 478 AND 838 OF 2021 AND 1007 OF 2022 E
(CONSOLIDATED)
F F
------------------------------
G G
HKSAR
H
v H
rd
CHUNG WAI CHUNG (3 defendant)
I I
------------------------------
J J
Before: HH Judge Kathie Cheung
K K
Date: 14 March 2024
L Present: Mr. TRACY Maurice Peter leading Mr. CHAN Kleon, L
counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
M M
Mr. SZETO Park Patrick, instructed by Messrs. Fan Wong &
N Tso, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid for the 3rd N
defendant
O O
Offences: [1] Causing grievous bodily harm with intent (有意圖而導致
P 身體受嚴重傷害) P
Q
[2] Wounding with intent(有意圖而傷人) Q
[3] Common assault(普通襲擊)
R R
[4] Failing to surrender to custody without reasonable
S cause(無合理因由而沒有按照法庭的指定歸押駕) S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
---------------------------------------
C REASONS FOR SENTENCE C
---------------------------------------
D D
E 1. The third defendant was jointly charged with others for: one E
count of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 17(a)
F F
of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212 (charge 1), one
G count of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of Cap. 212 G
(charge 2), one count of common assault, contrary to Common Law and
H H
punishable under section 40 of Cap. 212 (charge 3). He was also charged
I with 1 count of failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause, I
contrary to section 9L(1) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap.
J J
221 (charge 4). The third defendant pleaded guilty to all charges.
K K
Facts
L L
M 2. On or about 21 July 2020, Yeung Kai Tai (“Yeung”) rented a M
holiday accommodation at Bela Vista Villa, Cheung Chau (“Villa”) for 21
N N
and 22 July 2020. The third defendant, Yeung, So Chin Ching (“CC So”),
O Kwok Wang Hin (“Kwok”), Cheng Pak Hin (“Cheng”) and So Pak Kei O
(“PK So”), made use of the said accommodation at the material times.
P P
Q 3. In the early hours of 22 July 2020, Liu Tsz Ho (“Liu”), Shek Q
Ka Fai (“Shek”), Wong Ka Kin (“Wong”) and two young females
R R
(hereinafter referred as “the two young ladies”) arranged and stayed at a
S S
holiday accommodation at Tung Loi Court, Cheung Chau. The Villa and
T
Tung Loi Court are only about 20m apart. T
U U
2
V V
A A
B B
4. Liu’s party had purchased a number of items for consumption
C including some alcoholic drinks. At one stage, the two young ladies learnt C
that some other friends were staying at the Villa. They left Tung Loi Court
D D
and went to meet up with these other friends at the Villa. These “other
E friends” were the group occupying or using the premises rented by Yeung. E
At around 6am on 22 July 2020, Liu, Shek and Wong noticed that the two
F F
young ladies had not returned. They then went to the Villa to look for them.
G Shortly thereafter, Liu, Shek and Wong left the Villa with the two young G
ladies and walked towards Tung Loi Court.
H H
I Charge 3 I
J J
5. Liu, Shek and Wong were followed by Cheng and a man
K called “Lam”. Liu became angry and charged towards Cheng and Lam. K
Cheng and Lam retreated. Liu and Wong pursued them into the Villa.
L L
Around 30 seconds later, Liu and Wong ran out from the Villa as they were
M chased by Cheng who was wielding a rod. CC So, Kwok and the third M
defendant, each wielding a rod, together with PK So and Yeung, followed
N N
behind. In the course of the chase, Cheng struck Wong's head and back
O with the rod several times. O
P P
Charge 1
Q Q
R 6. Liu turned around and threw a glass bottle at Cheng but R
missed. Liu lost balance and fell onto the ground. CC So, Kwok, the third
S S
defendant, Cheng and PK So caught up with Liu and they attacked Liu
T repeatedly. Cheng struck Liu with his rod. Kwok took a nearby chair and T
struck Liu with it. PK So grabbed a nearby pallet and threw it at Liu. One
U U
3
V V
A A
B B
of the assailants poked Liu in the eye. After around 30 seconds, the
C assailants stopped, except Cheng, who continued to strike Liu for another C
15 seconds. PK So then pulled Cheng away. In the meantime, Wong had
D D
fled the scene.
E E
Charge 2
F F
G 7. At this juncture, Shek walked towards the assailants and G
confronted them. By then, CC So had already left the group and was
H H
walking towards the Villa. Kwok, the third defendant, Cheng, PK So and
I Yeung then struck Shek repeatedly. Yeung picked up a stick from the I
ground and struck Shek on the head several times. During the attack, Shek
J J
heard one of the assailants declaring that they were from the triad "Lo Sun".
K K
8. After the attack on Shek, all the assailants returned to the Villa.
L L
A passerby who saw the incident reported the case to the police.
M M
9. As a result of the attack, Liu sustained the following injuries:
N N
(1) ruptured left globe with periorbital swelling and subcutaneous
O emphysema; (2) fractured left nasal bone; (3) scalp hematoma at left frontal, O
left occipital and right parietal region; (4) fingers fracture at right hand;
P P
and (5) lacerations at right hand dorsum and left wrist dorsum. Liu's left
Q eye became blind as a result. He was discharged from hospital on 28 July Q
2020.
R R
S S
10. Shek was found to have a deep laceration of 4cm in length at
T
right side of scalp. He was discharged from hospital on 22 July 2020. T
U U
4
V V
A A
B B
11. The third defendant was arrested on 18 September 2020.
C Records of the third defendant’s Octopus card show that he travelled by C
ferry from Cheung Chau back to Central at around 7:35am on 22 July 2020.
D D
E 12. Liu positively identified the third defendant at an E
identification parade conducted on 21 September 2020.
F F
G Charge 4 G
H H
13. At the first District Court Plea Day hearing on 3 June 2021,
I the third defendant was granted court bail and the case was adjourned to I
14 July 2021. The third defendant failed to attend Court on 14 July 2021
J J
and an arrest warrant was issued.
K K
14. The third defendant was intercepted in Admiralty MTR
L L
station by the police on 9 January 2022 during anti-crime patrol and his
M wanted status was revealed. The third defendant was arrested for his failure M
to attend Court, and he was brought to the District Court on 11 January
N N
2022 following this re-arrest. The third defendant did not give any
O explanation in Court, nor had he given any explanation earlier nor O
subsequently.
P P
Q Mitigation Q
R R
15. The third defendant is aged 25. He was aged 21 at the time of
S S
the offences. Prior to the offences, he lived with his mother and elder
T
brother. He worked as a construction site worker. He has a clear record. T
U U
5
V V
A A
B B
16. In mitigation, it was submitted that the third defendant was
C having fun and consuming alcohol with his friends at the Villa for quite C
some time prior to the subject incident. When the victims came to look for
D D
the two young ladies, the two young ladies at first refused to leave the Villa
E and thus an argument arose between the victims and the friends of the third E
defendant. The third defendant was then woken up by the heated
F F
exchanges and was still under the influence of alcohol at the material times.
G The third defendant was still trying to understand what was happening and G
had simply followed suit when his friends were fighting with the victims.
H H
I 17. It was submitted that the incidents were the result of the I
dispute inside the Villa which were to a considerable extent provoked by
J J
the victims in forcing the two young ladies to leave and charging back into
K the Villa. The attacks were not premeditated. K
L L
18. Although the third defendant accepts guilt on the basis of joint
M enterprise, the Summary of Facts indeed did not suggest the third defendant M
was directly or specifically accountable for any overt acts or attacks on the
N N
victims. It was also pointed out that in relation to the attack on Liu, the
O attack involving the third defendant ended around 30 seconds when Liu O
had fallen down.
P P
Q 19. Having referred to some authorities1, the defence submitted Q
the starting point for charges 1-2 should be in the range of 4 to 5 years.
R R
S S
T T
1
AG v Low Wing Wah, CAAR8/1995, HKSAR v Chow On, CACC 194/2005 & HKSAR v Park Sung Jin,
U DCCC 517/2021 U
6
V V
A A
B B
20. For charge 3, it was submitted that a short term imprisonment
C would be appropriate. C
D D
21. Bearing in mind charges 1-3 were committed at the same time
E and place over a short period of time involving the same parties, the third E
defendant urged this Court to consider imposing concurrent sentences on
F F
the 3 charges.
G G
22. For charge 4, it was submitted a short term imprisonment
H H
would be appropriate. It was further submitted that as the case could not
I be dealt with as swiftly as it should be due to adjournment for various I
reasons, the third defendant has been remanded for about 26 months.
J J
Notwithstanding charge 4 is independent with the 3 other charges, on
K totality and the objective criminality of the matter, the third defendant K
urged this Court to consider imposing concurrent sentence on all 4 charges.
L L
M 23. Finally, it was submitted that the third defendant has reflected M
and learnt a bitter lesson during his remand. He has truly reformed and
N N
urged this Court to impose a lenient sentence on him.
O O
Sentence
P P
Q 24. Wounding with intent is a very serious offence. There is no Q
sentencing guideline in respect of this offence. The range of sentence for
R R
this offence is wide, usually from 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment.
S S
T
25. In HKSAR v Ma Tik Lun Dicky [2015] 1 HKLRD 380, the T
Court of Appeal referred to HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [2013] 6 HKC 255
U U
7
V V
A A
B B
and reiterated that “wounding with intent” is a serious offence warranting
C a deterrent sentence and set out the major sentencing considerations: C
D D
(1) the extent to which the assault was premeditated;
E E
(2) the motivation underlying the assault;
F F
G (3) the mental or emotional state of the assailant; G
H H
(4) whether the assailant was acting under the influence of
I alcohol or drugs; I
J J
(5) whether the assault was committed by the assailant alone
K or as part of a group; K
L L
(6) the type of weapons employed;
M M
(7) the level of force used;
N N
O O
(8) the injuries caused to the victim;
P P
(9) the effect of the assault upon the victim (and those close
Q to him or her). Q
R R
26. In that case, the Court of Appeal also set out the aggravating
S S
factors for wounding case:
T T
(1) the defendant was the principal offender;
U U
8
V V
A A
B B
C (2) the assault was committed in company; C
D D
(3) the assault was unprovoked;
E E
(4) the assault took place in a public place;
F F
G G
(5) the assault went on after the victim had fallen down;
H H
(6) the assault went on after the victim became unable to
I defend himself; I
J J
(7) the victim suffered serious and lasting injuries;
K K
L (8) at the police interview, the defendant misled the police as L
to the facts, indicating a lack of remorse.
M M
27. The third defendant is a young man with clear record. He is
N N
entitled to the usual one third discount for his guilty plea.
O O
P
28. In the subject incident, the third defendant joined in three P
separate attacks on three victims. He acted in the company with others.
Q Q
They picked up weapons from the vicinity and repeatedly attacked the
R victims. The attacks were carried out in a public place. The attack went R
on after Liu had fallen down. As a result of the attack, Liu has a total loss
S S
of vision on his left eye. All these are aggravating features of this case.
T T
U U
9
V V
A A
B B
29. On the other hand, I accept for the other two victims, there is
C no evidence of any permanent disability caused. I also accept the third C
defendant was under the influence of alcohol when committing the
D D
offences. This, together with the fact that they picked up weapons from
E the vicinity, supports the contention that the attacks were not premeditated. E
Further, there is no evidence to rebut the allegation that the incident was
F F
somehow provoked by the victims. The weapons used were not lethal
G weapons and all the attacks were for a relatively short period of time. G
H H
30. In view of the above, I consider this a serious case resulting
I in serious and lasting injury to one of the victims. I
J J
31. As far as totality is concerned, while charges 1-3 were
K committed within a short period of time on the same day arising from the K
same incident, unlike CC So who left and did not take part in further attack,
L L
the third defendant did not leave but he chose to take part in all three attacks.
M Therefore, I do not consider it appropriate to order total concurrent M
sentences on charges 1-3 as this cannot reflect the overall criminality of the
N N
third defendant. Whilst the third defendant has been remanded for about
O 26 months due to adjournment of this case on various occasions, given the O
nature of charge 4 is different from the nature of charges 1-3, I do not
P P
consider it appropriate to order the sentence of charge 4 to run wholly
Q concurrently with the sentences of other charges. Q
R R
32. In view of all the circumstances and the totality principle,
S sentence of the 4 charges are as follows: S
T T
U U
10
V V
A A
B B
Charge 1: starting point 5 years’ imprisonment, reduced to 40
C months’ imprisonment for guilty plea; C
D D
Charge 2: starting point 4 years’ imprisonment, reduced to 32
E months’ imprisonment for guilty plea, 4 months of the E
sentence to run consecutively to the sentence of Charge 1;
F F
G Charge 3: starting point 6 months’ imprisonment, reduced to G
4 months’ imprisonment for guilty plea, 1 month of the
H H
sentence to run consecutively to the sentence of Charge 1;
I I
Charge 4: starting point 3 months’ imprisonment, reduced to
J J
2 months’ imprisonment for guilty plea, 1 month of the
K sentence to run consecutively to the sentence of Charge 1; K
L L
Total sentence: 46 months’ imprisonment
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q ( Kathie Cheung ) Q
District Judge
R R
S S
T T
U U
11
V V
HKSAR v. CHUNG WAI CHUNG
DCCC478/2021
案件基本資料
案件名稱：HKSAR v Chung Wai Chung
法院：區域法院 (District Court)
法官：Kathie Cheung
判決日期：2024年3月14日
案情摘要
2020年7月22日凌晨，第三被告與一群朋友在長洲度假別墅逗留。因與另一組尋找女性友人的男子（Liu, Shek 及 Wong）發生爭執，第三被告與其同夥持棍及椅子在公共場所對受害者進行多次襲擊。其中 Liu 被集體毆打導致左眼失明，Shek 則頭部受傷。此外，第三被告在獲准保釋後未能按時出庭，直到2022年1月被捕。
法官引用 HKSAR v Ma Tik Lun Dicky 確立的 sentencing considerations，分析 wounding with intent 的嚴重性。法官認為本案存在多項 aggravating factors：襲擊是在公共場所由集體進行、受害者倒地後仍持續攻擊，且導致受害者永久失明。雖然被告受酒精影響且非預謀，但其參與了所有三次襲擊，因此根據 totality principle，不能將所有刑期完全 concurrent。
引用案例與條文
引用 HKSAR v Ma Tik Lun Dicky [2015] 1 HKLRD 380 及 HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [2013] 6 HKC 255，用以確立 wounding with intent 的量刑準則及加重刑罰因素。
裁決與命令
第三被告對所有控罪均認罪。法官裁定：第一項控罪（GBH with intent）刑期40個月；第二項控罪（Wounding with intent）32個月（4個月 consecutive）；第三項控罪（Common assault）4個月（1個月 consecutive）；第四項控罪（未歸押駕）2個月（1個月 consecutive）。總刑期為 46 個月監禁。
### 案件基本資料
- 案件名稱：HKSAR v Chung Wai Chung
- 法院：區域法院 (District Court)
- 法官：Kathie Cheung
- 判決日期：2024年3月14日
### 案情摘要
2020年7月22日凌晨，第三被告與一群朋友在長洲度假別墅逗留。因與另一組尋找女性友人的男子（Liu, Shek 及 Wong）發生爭執，第三被告與其同夥持棍及椅子在公共場所對受害者進行多次襲擊。其中 Liu 被集體毆打導致左眼失明，Shek 則頭部受傷。此外，第三被告在獲准保釋後未能按時出庭，直到2022年1月被捕。
### 核心法律爭議
本案核心 legal issue 為對第三被告的 sentencing 考量。控方指控其涉及有意圖導致身體受嚴重傷害、有意圖傷人、普通襲擊及無合理因由未按指定歸押駕。辯方則主張被告當時受酒精影響、並非預謀且受到受害者挑釁，且其在 joint enterprise 中並無直接執行特定攻擊行為，請求寬大處理並建議所有刑期 concurrent。
### 判決理由
法官引用 HKSAR v Ma Tik Lun Dicky 確立的 sentencing considerations，分析 wounding with intent 的嚴重性。法官認為本案存在多項 aggravating factors：襲擊是在公共場所由集體進行、受害者倒地後仍持續攻擊，且導致受害者永久失明。雖然被告受酒精影響且非預謀，但其參與了所有三次襲擊，因此根據 totality principle，不能將所有刑期完全 concurrent。
### 引用案例與條文
引用 HKSAR v Ma Tik Lun Dicky [2015] 1 HKLRD 380 及 HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [2013] 6 HKC 255，用以確立 wounding with intent 的量刑準則及加重刑罰因素。
### 裁決與命令
第三被告對所有控罪均認罪。法官裁定：第一項控罪（GBH with intent）刑期40個月；第二項控罪（Wounding with intent）32個月（4個月 consecutive）；第三項控罪（Common assault）4個月（1個月 consecutive）；第四項控罪（未歸押駕）2個月（1個月 consecutive）。總刑期為 46 個月監禁。
### 判決啟示
本案強調在涉及多項暴力控罪時，即使被告認罪且有減刑，但若其參與多場襲擊且造成嚴重永久傷害，法院在應用 totality principle 時會確保刑期能反映整體 criminality，而非簡單地將所有刑期 concurrent。
---
### 免責聲明
本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details
- Case Name: HKSAR v Chung Wai Chung
- Court: District Court
- Judge: Kathie Cheung
- Date of Judgment: 14 March 2024
### Factual Background
On 22 July 2020, the third defendant and his associates engaged in a violent confrontation with three men (Liu, Shek, and Wong) in Cheung Chau. The defendant and others used rods and chairs to repeatedly attack the victims in a public place. One victim, Liu, suffered permanent blindness in his left eye. Additionally, the defendant failed to surrender to custody after being granted bail, remaining at large until January 2022.
### Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was the determination of an appropriate sentence for charges of causing GBH with intent, wounding with intent, common assault, and failing to surrender to custody. The defense argued that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, the attacks were not premeditated, and the victims had provoked the incident, requesting concurrent sentences based on the principle of totality.
### Ratio Decidendi
The judge applied sentencing considerations for 'wounding with intent', noting several aggravating factors: the assault was committed in company, occurred in public, continued after the victim fell, and resulted in permanent disability. While acknowledging the lack of premeditation and the defendant's clear record, the judge ruled that because the defendant participated in all three attacks, total concurrency would not reflect the overall criminality.
### Key Precedents & Statutes
HKSAR v Ma Tik Lun Dicky [2015] 1 HKLRD 380 and HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [2013] 6 HKC 255 were cited to establish the sentencing framework and aggravating factors for wounding with intent.
### Decision & Orders
The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges. The court sentenced him to 40 months for Charge 1, 32 months for Charge 2 (4 months consecutive), 4 months for Charge 3 (1 month consecutive), and 2 months for Charge 4 (1 month consecutive). The total sentence is 46 months' imprisonment.
### Key Takeaways
The judgment underscores that permanent serious injury and group violence significantly elevate the starting point for sentencing, and the totality principle will be used to ensure the final sentence reflects the cumulative criminality of multiple distinct attacks.
---
### Disclaimer
This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.
A A
B B
DCCC 478 & 838/2021 & 1007/2022 (Consolidated)
[2024] HKDC 436
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO 478 AND 838 OF 2021 AND 1007 OF 2022 E
(CONSOLIDATED)
F F
------------------------------
G G
HKSAR
H
v H
rd
CHUNG WAI CHUNG (3 defendant)
I I
------------------------------
J J
Before: HH Judge Kathie Cheung
K K
Date: 14 March 2024
L Present: Mr. TRACY Maurice Peter leading Mr. CHAN Kleon, L
counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
M M
Mr. SZETO Park Patrick, instructed by Messrs. Fan Wong &
N Tso, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid for the 3rd N
defendant
O O
Offences: [1] Causing grievous bodily harm with intent (有意圖而導致
P 身體受嚴重傷害) P
Q
[2] Wounding with intent(有意圖而傷人) Q
[3] Common assault(普通襲擊)
R R
[4] Failing to surrender to custody without reasonable
S cause(無合理因由而沒有按照法庭的指定歸押駕) S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
---------------------------------------
C REASONS FOR SENTENCE C
---------------------------------------
D D
E 1. The third defendant was jointly charged with others for: one E
count of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 17(a)
F F
of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212 (charge 1), one
G count of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of Cap. 212 G
(charge 2), one count of common assault, contrary to Common Law and
H H
punishable under section 40 of Cap. 212 (charge 3). He was also charged
I with 1 count of failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause, I
contrary to section 9L(1) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap.
J J
221 (charge 4). The third defendant pleaded guilty to all charges.
K K
Facts
L L
M 2. On or about 21 July 2020, Yeung Kai Tai (“Yeung”) rented a M
holiday accommodation at Bela Vista Villa, Cheung Chau (“Villa”) for 21
N N
and 22 July 2020. The third defendant, Yeung, So Chin Ching (“CC So”),
O Kwok Wang Hin (“Kwok”), Cheng Pak Hin (“Cheng”) and So Pak Kei O
(“PK So”), made use of the said accommodation at the material times.
P P
Q 3. In the early hours of 22 July 2020, Liu Tsz Ho (“Liu”), Shek Q
Ka Fai (“Shek”), Wong Ka Kin (“Wong”) and two young females
R R
(hereinafter referred as “the two young ladies”) arranged and stayed at a
S S
holiday accommodation at Tung Loi Court, Cheung Chau. The Villa and
T
Tung Loi Court are only about 20m apart. T
U U
2
V V
A A
B B
4. Liu’s party had purchased a number of items for consumption
C including some alcoholic drinks. At one stage, the two young ladies learnt C
that some other friends were staying at the Villa. They left Tung Loi Court
D D
and went to meet up with these other friends at the Villa. These “other
E friends” were the group occupying or using the premises rented by Yeung. E
At around 6am on 22 July 2020, Liu, Shek and Wong noticed that the two
F F
young ladies had not returned. They then went to the Villa to look for them.
G Shortly thereafter, Liu, Shek and Wong left the Villa with the two young G
ladies and walked towards Tung Loi Court.
H H
I Charge 3 I
J J
5. Liu, Shek and Wong were followed by Cheng and a man
K called “Lam”. Liu became angry and charged towards Cheng and Lam. K
Cheng and Lam retreated. Liu and Wong pursued them into the Villa.
L L
Around 30 seconds later, Liu and Wong ran out from the Villa as they were
M chased by Cheng who was wielding a rod. CC So, Kwok and the third M
defendant, each wielding a rod, together with PK So and Yeung, followed
N N
behind. In the course of the chase, Cheng struck Wong's head and back
O with the rod several times. O
P P
Charge 1
Q Q
R 6. Liu turned around and threw a glass bottle at Cheng but R
missed. Liu lost balance and fell onto the ground. CC So, Kwok, the third
S S
defendant, Cheng and PK So caught up with Liu and they attacked Liu
T repeatedly. Cheng struck Liu with his rod. Kwok took a nearby chair and T
struck Liu with it. PK So grabbed a nearby pallet and threw it at Liu. One
U U
3
V V
A A
B B
of the assailants poked Liu in the eye. After around 30 seconds, the
C assailants stopped, except Cheng, who continued to strike Liu for another C
15 seconds. PK So then pulled Cheng away. In the meantime, Wong had
D D
fled the scene.
E E
Charge 2
F F
G 7. At this juncture, Shek walked towards the assailants and G
confronted them. By then, CC So had already left the group and was
H H
walking towards the Villa. Kwok, the third defendant, Cheng, PK So and
I Yeung then struck Shek repeatedly. Yeung picked up a stick from the I
ground and struck Shek on the head several times. During the attack, Shek
J J
heard one of the assailants declaring that they were from the triad "Lo Sun".
K K
8. After the attack on Shek, all the assailants returned to the Villa.
L L
A passerby who saw the incident reported the case to the police.
M M
9. As a result of the attack, Liu sustained the following injuries:
N N
(1) ruptured left globe with periorbital swelling and subcutaneous
O emphysema; (2) fractured left nasal bone; (3) scalp hematoma at left frontal, O
left occipital and right parietal region; (4) fingers fracture at right hand;
P P
and (5) lacerations at right hand dorsum and left wrist dorsum. Liu's left
Q eye became blind as a result. He was discharged from hospital on 28 July Q
2020.
R R
S S
10. Shek was found to have a deep laceration of 4cm in length at
T
right side of scalp. He was discharged from hospital on 22 July 2020. T
U U
4
V V
A A
B B
11. The third defendant was arrested on 18 September 2020.
C Records of the third defendant’s Octopus card show that he travelled by C
ferry from Cheung Chau back to Central at around 7:35am on 22 July 2020.
D D
E 12. Liu positively identified the third defendant at an E
identification parade conducted on 21 September 2020.
F F
G Charge 4 G
H H
13. At the first District Court Plea Day hearing on 3 June 2021,
I the third defendant was granted court bail and the case was adjourned to I
14 July 2021. The third defendant failed to attend Court on 14 July 2021
J J
and an arrest warrant was issued.
K K
14. The third defendant was intercepted in Admiralty MTR
L L
station by the police on 9 January 2022 during anti-crime patrol and his
M wanted status was revealed. The third defendant was arrested for his failure M
to attend Court, and he was brought to the District Court on 11 January
N N
2022 following this re-arrest. The third defendant did not give any
O explanation in Court, nor had he given any explanation earlier nor O
subsequently.
P P
Q Mitigation Q
R R
15. The third defendant is aged 25. He was aged 21 at the time of
S S
the offences. Prior to the offences, he lived with his mother and elder
T
brother. He worked as a construction site worker. He has a clear record. T
U U
5
V V
A A
B B
16. In mitigation, it was submitted that the third defendant was
C having fun and consuming alcohol with his friends at the Villa for quite C
some time prior to the subject incident. When the victims came to look for
D D
the two young ladies, the two young ladies at first refused to leave the Villa
E and thus an argument arose between the victims and the friends of the third E
defendant. The third defendant was then woken up by the heated
F F
exchanges and was still under the influence of alcohol at the material times.
G The third defendant was still trying to understand what was happening and G
had simply followed suit when his friends were fighting with the victims.
H H
I 17. It was submitted that the incidents were the result of the I
dispute inside the Villa which were to a considerable extent provoked by
J J
the victims in forcing the two young ladies to leave and charging back into
K the Villa. The attacks were not premeditated. K
L L
18. Although the third defendant accepts guilt on the basis of joint
M enterprise, the Summary of Facts indeed did not suggest the third defendant M
was directly or specifically accountable for any overt acts or attacks on the
N N
victims. It was also pointed out that in relation to the attack on Liu, the
O attack involving the third defendant ended around 30 seconds when Liu O
had fallen down.
P P
Q 19. Having referred to some authorities1, the defence submitted Q
the starting point for charges 1-2 should be in the range of 4 to 5 years.
R R
S S
T T
1
AG v Low Wing Wah, CAAR8/1995, HKSAR v Chow On, CACC 194/2005 & HKSAR v Park Sung Jin,
U DCCC 517/2021 U
6
V V
A A
B B
20. For charge 3, it was submitted that a short term imprisonment
C would be appropriate. C
D D
21. Bearing in mind charges 1-3 were committed at the same time
E and place over a short period of time involving the same parties, the third E
defendant urged this Court to consider imposing concurrent sentences on
F F
the 3 charges.
G G
22. For charge 4, it was submitted a short term imprisonment
H H
would be appropriate. It was further submitted that as the case could not
I be dealt with as swiftly as it should be due to adjournment for various I
reasons, the third defendant has been remanded for about 26 months.
J J
Notwithstanding charge 4 is independent with the 3 other charges, on
K totality and the objective criminality of the matter, the third defendant K
urged this Court to consider imposing concurrent sentence on all 4 charges.
L L
M 23. Finally, it was submitted that the third defendant has reflected M
and learnt a bitter lesson during his remand. He has truly reformed and
N N
urged this Court to impose a lenient sentence on him.
O O
Sentence
P P
Q 24. Wounding with intent is a very serious offence. There is no Q
sentencing guideline in respect of this offence. The range of sentence for
R R
this offence is wide, usually from 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment.
S S
T
25. In HKSAR v Ma Tik Lun Dicky [2015] 1 HKLRD 380, the T
Court of Appeal referred to HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [2013] 6 HKC 255
U U
7
V V
A A
B B
and reiterated that “wounding with intent” is a serious offence warranting
C a deterrent sentence and set out the major sentencing considerations: C
D D
(1) the extent to which the assault was premeditated;
E E
(2) the motivation underlying the assault;
F F
G (3) the mental or emotional state of the assailant; G
H H
(4) whether the assailant was acting under the influence of
I alcohol or drugs; I
J J
(5) whether the assault was committed by the assailant alone
K or as part of a group; K
L L
(6) the type of weapons employed;
M M
(7) the level of force used;
N N
O O
(8) the injuries caused to the victim;
P P
(9) the effect of the assault upon the victim (and those close
Q to him or her). Q
R R
26. In that case, the Court of Appeal also set out the aggravating
S S
factors for wounding case:
T T
(1) the defendant was the principal offender;
U U
8
V V
A A
B B
C (2) the assault was committed in company; C
D D
(3) the assault was unprovoked;
E E
(4) the assault took place in a public place;
F F
G G
(5) the assault went on after the victim had fallen down;
H H
(6) the assault went on after the victim became unable to
I defend himself; I
J J
(7) the victim suffered serious and lasting injuries;
K K
L (8) at the police interview, the defendant misled the police as L
to the facts, indicating a lack of remorse.
M M
27. The third defendant is a young man with clear record. He is
N N
entitled to the usual one third discount for his guilty plea.
O O
P
28. In the subject incident, the third defendant joined in three P
separate attacks on three victims. He acted in the company with others.
Q Q
They picked up weapons from the vicinity and repeatedly attacked the
R victims. The attacks were carried out in a public place. The attack went R
on after Liu had fallen down. As a result of the attack, Liu has a total loss
S S
of vision on his left eye. All these are aggravating features of this case.
T T
U U
9
V V
A A
B B
29. On the other hand, I accept for the other two victims, there is
C no evidence of any permanent disability caused. I also accept the third C
defendant was under the influence of alcohol when committing the
D D
offences. This, together with the fact that they picked up weapons from
E the vicinity, supports the contention that the attacks were not premeditated. E
Further, there is no evidence to rebut the allegation that the incident was
F F
somehow provoked by the victims. The weapons used were not lethal
G weapons and all the attacks were for a relatively short period of time. G
H H
30. In view of the above, I consider this a serious case resulting
I in serious and lasting injury to one of the victims. I
J J
31. As far as totality is concerned, while charges 1-3 were
K committed within a short period of time on the same day arising from the K
same incident, unlike CC So who left and did not take part in further attack,
L L
the third defendant did not leave but he chose to take part in all three attacks.
M Therefore, I do not consider it appropriate to order total concurrent M
sentences on charges 1-3 as this cannot reflect the overall criminality of the
N N
third defendant. Whilst the third defendant has been remanded for about
O 26 months due to adjournment of this case on various occasions, given the O
nature of charge 4 is different from the nature of charges 1-3, I do not
P P
consider it appropriate to order the sentence of charge 4 to run wholly
Q concurrently with the sentences of other charges. Q
R R
32. In view of all the circumstances and the totality principle,
S sentence of the 4 charges are as follows: S
T T
U U
10
V V
A A
B B
Charge 1: starting point 5 years’ imprisonment, reduced to 40
C months’ imprisonment for guilty plea; C
D D
Charge 2: starting point 4 years’ imprisonment, reduced to 32
E months’ imprisonment for guilty plea, 4 months of the E
sentence to run consecutively to the sentence of Charge 1;
F F
G Charge 3: starting point 6 months’ imprisonment, reduced to G
4 months’ imprisonment for guilty plea, 1 month of the
H H
sentence to run consecutively to the sentence of Charge 1;
I I
Charge 4: starting point 3 months’ imprisonment, reduced to
J J
2 months’ imprisonment for guilty plea, 1 month of the
K sentence to run consecutively to the sentence of Charge 1; K
L L
Total sentence: 46 months’ imprisonment
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q ( Kathie Cheung ) Q
District Judge
R R
S S
T T
U U
11
V V