A A
DCCC 1197/2023
B B
[2024] HKDC 2117
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO 1197 OF 2023 E
F F
------------------------------------
G HKSAR G
H
v H
CHUI SIU LUNG
I I
------------------------------------
J J
Before: District Judge Clement Lee
K K
Date: 13 December 2024
L Present: Ms Whitfort Amanda, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR L
Mr Allan William, instructed by Messrs H. Y. Leung & Co.
M M
LLP for the defendant
N Offence: [1] Wounding with intent（有意圖而傷人） N
[2] Common assault（普通襲擊）
O O
P -------------------------------------- P
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Q Q
--------------------------------------
R R
Charges
S S
1. The defendant pleaded not guilty to two charges, Charge 1 is
T T
wounding with intent on PW1, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences
U U
V V
- 2 -
A A
against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212. Charge 2 is common assault on
B B
PW2, contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 40 of the
C Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212. He was convicted on C
both charges after trial. Since detailed account for the conviction can be
D D
found in my Reasons for Verdict, I set out the brief facts hereunder in so far
E as they are relevant to sentence. E
F F
Background
G G
2. The prosecution case, as accepted by me is that both the
H H
wounding and assault took place outside Block B, Beautiful Garden, No. 11
I Chui Lok Street, Tai Po, on 17 April 2020. The victims of Charges 1 and 2 I
J
are PW1 Mr Chan and PW2 Ms Chung respectively. In gist, on 17 April J
2020 at about 10pm, the defendant, former boyfriend of Ms Chung (PW2),
K K
made a phone call to PW2 and they had a chat over the telephone, follow by
L
a face to face chat at the scene. PW2 thought the defendant has left after the L
chat but shortly thereafter, the defendant returned, shouted with angry words,
M M
bended forward his upper body inside PW1’s car, hit PW1 with a glass cup
N (Charge 1). PW2 tried to pull the defendant but the defendant slapped her N
face and pushed her onto the ground (Charge 2). PW1’s right face was
O O
bleeding. At that time, PW1 was PW2’s boyfriend. PW1 sustained injuries
P to his right face, diagnosis and descriptions include 3 laceration wounds. P
Suturing was done.
Q Q
R Personal background of the defendant & mitigation R
S S
3. The defendant is now aged 44. He has received education up to
T form 4 level. He worked as a construction worker before arrest. He has a T
U U
V V
- 3 -
A A
spent conviction for the offence of betting with bookmaker in 1994 for being
B B
put in probation.
C C
4. In mitigation, Mr Allan submitted that firstly, there is
D D
prosecution delay. Secondly, the assault arose out of lovers’ dispute.
E Thirdly, there is no evidence of permanent injury and PW1’s wounds E
recovered well and there is no noticeable scars on his right face. I adjourned
F F
the sentence for the prosecution to prepare a prosecution’s chronological
G table. I also invite the parties to pay heed to the relevant case on prosecution G
delay: Chiu Chi Wing CACC 243/2012 and provide more examples of
H H
sentence involving lovers’ dispute resulting in assault.
I I
J
Sentence J
K K
5. The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for the
L
offence of wounding with intent is that of life imprisonment. Depending on L
the facts, the usual sentence is between 3 and 12 years. The gravity of the
M M
offence lies in the deliberate resort to violence with the intent by the
N offender to inflict by such violence really serious harm on the victim. N
O O
6. In HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat CACC 317/2012, The Court of
P Appeal stated that in determining the gravity of the offence, the factor of P
primary importance is the intent of the assailant to cause the victim really
Q Q
serious bodily harm. Whether that intent was fully realized in the injuries
R sought to be inflicted has been said to be of “secondary significance”. As R
the consequences to the victim may not be as the assailant
S S
intended. Tragically, they may be worse, but even when they are not or they
T are not as bad as the assailant hoped to achieve that may not lessen the T
U U
V V
- 4 -
A A
gravity of the offence. For the failure of the offender to achieve the level of
B B
harm he intended may be due to resistance by the victim, the intervention of
C others, speedy medical attention or purely unanticipated fortuitous C
circumstances. The Court of Appeal also identified certain usual factors
D D
relevant in sentencing:
E E
(1) the extent to which the assault was premeditated,
F F
(2) the reasons or motivation underlying the assault upon the victim,
G
(3) the mental or emotional state of the assailant at the time of the G
assault, whether alcohol or drugs contributed to the actions of the
H assailant, H
(4) whether the assault was committed by the assailant alone or as
I I
part of a group,
(5) the type of weapons employed,
J J
(6) the level of force or aggression and the persistence with which the
K assault was pressed home, K
(7) the injuries caused to the victim and the effect of the assault upon
L the victim and those close to him or her. L
M M
7. In HKSAR v Tung Pak Fai [2022] HKCA 1470, the Court of
N Appeal summarized the relevant factors when sentencing wounding with N
intent case:
O O
P “21.The relevant factors relevant to sentencing in wounding with P
intent cases were set out in HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat and
endorsed in HKSAR v Jatinder Singh. These include the extent to
Q Q
which the assault was premeditated, the reasons or motivation
underlying the assault upon the victim, the mental or emotional
R state of the assailant at the time of the assault, whether alcohol or R
drugs contributed to the actions of the assailant, whether the
assault was committed by the assailant alone or as part of a group,
S S
the type of weapons employed, and the level of force or aggression
and the persistence with which the assault was pressed home, the
T injuries caused to the victim and the effect of the assault upon the T
victim and those close to him or her (at paragraph 49, Chan Chun
U U
V V
- 5 -
A A
Tat). The list is not meant to be exhaustive but it purely
B demonstrates that the culpability of an offender of a wounding B
with intent charge will relate to the type of harm intended to be
inflicted, the means by which that harm was inflicted and the
C C
circumstances generally surrounding the assault. Given the many
imponderables as to why an assailant failed to achieve the
D injuries intended by him, the actual injuries caused is only one of D
the myriad of factors to be take into account. The gravamen of the
offence is in the intent to inflict really serious injuries, which is the
E same intent as that required for murder. The lack of serious E
injuries does not necessarily reduce the gravity of the offence or
F offset the other aggravating factors.” F
G G
8. In HKSAR v Ma Tik Lun Dicky CACC 112/2013, the Court of
H Appeal summarized the aggravating factors for sentencing wounding with H
I
intent cases as follows: I
“41.… [T]he aggravating factors for this type of wounding case
J J
are: (1) the defendant was the principal offender; (2) the assault
was committed in company; (3) the assault was unprovoked; (4)
K the assault took place in a public place; (5) the assault went on K
after the victim had fallen down; (6) the assault went on after the
victim became unable to defend himself; (7) the victim suffered
L L
serious and lasting injuries; (8) at the police interview, the
defendant misled the police as to the facts, indicating a lack of
M remorse…” M
N 9. Applying the above sentencing consideration into the present N
case, firstly, there is no evidence of premediated plan. I treated this case as
O O
coincident encounter and the defendant committed the offence at the spur of
P the moment. Secondly, I accept that this case might have arisen from the P
defendant's jealousy and anger. Had the defendant been able to control his
Q Q
temper, the assault could have been avoided. It seems that he just picked up
R the glass cup from nearby and hit PW1. While PW1’s injuries was not R
relatively serious in this category of offence, it is relevant to consider the
S S
pain and suffering as well as the agony arising from this traumatic
T T
experience. Having said that, I note that there is no permanent injury and
U U
V V
- 6 -
A A
PW1’s face did not exhibit noticeable scars as at the time of the trial. Lastly,
B B
although the defendant’s spent conviction dated back in 1994 and it is said
C to be as if it is a clear record. But case law suggests that clear record may C
not be considered as mitigating factor in serious offences calling for
D D
deterrent sentence.
E E
10. Sentencing of wounding offences is case specific and there is
F F
no tariff, by reason of the matters aforesaid, I adopt a starting point of 2.5
G years' imprisonment. G
H H
Prosecution’s delay
I I
J
11. In Chiu Chi Wing, the Court of Appeal considered and applied J
the seven factors identified by Buss JA, which were stated not to be intended
K K
to be exhaustive or inflexible, were:
L “ First, delay is not, of itself, a mitigating factor. L
M Secondly, delay will not ordinarily be a mitigating factor if it has M
been caused by difficulties in detecting, investigating or proving
the offences committed by the offender, and the period of the delay
N is reasonable in the circumstances. N
O Thirdly, delay will not ordinarily be a mitigating factor if it is O
caused by the offender’s obstruction or lack of co-operation with
the State, prosecuting authorities or investigatory bodies, but the
P P
offender’s reliance on his or her legal rights is not obstruction or
lack of co-operation for this purpose.
Q Q
Fourthly, delay will not ordinarily be a mitigating factor if it
results from the normal operation of the criminal justice system,
R R
including delay as a result of the offender or a co-offender
exercising his or her rights; for example, interlocutory appeals
S and other interlocutory processes. S
T Fifthly, delay may be conducive to the emergence of mitigating T
factors; for example, if, during the period of delay, the offender
U U
V V
- 7 -
A A
has made progress towards rehabilitation or other circumstances
B favourable to him or her have emerged. B
C Sixthly, delay (not being delay of the kind described in the second, C
third and fourth guiding principles) will ordinarily be a mitigating
factor if:
D D
(a) the delay has resulted in significant stress for the
E offender or left him or her, to a significant degree, in E
‘uncertain suspense’; or
F F
(b) during the period of delay the offender has adopted a
reasonable expectation that he or she would not be charged,
G or a pending prosecution would not proceed, and the G
offender has ordered his or her affairs on the faith of that
expectation.
H H
Seventhly, delay caused by dilatory or neglectful conduct by the
I State, prosecuting authorities or investigatory bodies may result I
in a discount of the sentence that would otherwise be imposed on
J
the offender, if the court thinks it an appropriate means of J
marking its disapproval of the conduct in question.”
K K
12. Applying the above factors into the present case and look into
L L
the prosecution’s chronology1, the defendant was arrested on 3 May 2020
M and he was charged on 1 December 2022, it took about 2 and a half years M
until prosecution was laid. However, there is about a 6 months’ period that
N N
the defendant exercised his right to dispute the arrangement of ID parade,
O with no fault on the prosecution. Taking to account the normal operation of O
investigation and legal advice, say one year, it seems that there is a delay of
P P
about one year. I therefore make a reduction of 2 months, the sentence for
Q Charge 1 is 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. Q
R R
13. Regarding Charge 2, the usual sentence for common assault is
S financial penalty or short imprisonment. I adopt a starting point of 6 weeks’ S
T T
1
See Appendix 1
U U
V V
- 8 -
A A
imprisonment and reduce it to 5 weeks for prosecution delay.
B B
C 14. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant C
any further reduction.
D D
E 15. As the facts of Charges 1 and 2 are overlapping, I order E
sentence on both charges be made concurrent, the total sentence is 2 years
F F
and 4 months’ imprisonment.
G G
H H
I ( Clement Lee ) I
District Judge
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 9 -
A A
Appendix 1: Prosecution’s chronology
B B
C Date Event C
2020-05-03 D was arrested
D D
2020-10-19 PW1 was first contacted by the Police for the arrangement of
E E
an ID parade
F 2020-12-18 The 1st ID parade was held but was eventually cancelled by the F
OC parade as the requests made by the Defence Counsel was
G considered unreasonable G
H 2021-05-31 The 2nd ID parade was held but was eventually cancelled by H
the OC again as the Defence Counsel was dissatisfied with the
arrangement of the actors
I I
2022-04-21 D was temporarily released as the Police wanted legal advice
J J
from DOJ on whether to charge D
K 2022-07-25 PW1 and PW2 confirmed that they would pursue the case and K
were willing to testify
L L
2022-07-28 Photos regarding PW1’s recovery were taken in Tai Po Police
M Station M
N
2022-08-18 Request for legal advice sent by police to DOJ N
2022-09-27 Legal Advice from DOJ required police to seek further
O O
statement from PW2 clarifying details and resubmit for their
advice before charging D
P P
2022-10-24 Further statement was taken from PW2 by police pursuant to
Q Legal Advice from DOJ Q
R 2022-10-30 Further statement of PW2 submitted to DOJ R
S
2022-12-01 DOJ recommends charges against D and trial in DC S
2022-12-23 Further statement was taken from PW2 again to clarify
T T
ambiguities
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
2023-03-15 D was put on watch/wanted list as multiple attempts were
made to reach him but to no avail
C C
2023-10-12 D was arrested at Lo Ma Chau Boundary Control Point
D D
2023-10-14 D was charged
E E
2023-11-17 Instructions to Plea Day Counsel signed by SPP
F F
2023-11-24 Case transferred to DC
G G
2023-12-05 Summary of Facts and Schedule of Prosecution witnesses
signed by SPP
H H
2024-02-20 Mentioned in DC – case set down for 2-day trial on 25 and 26
I Nov 2024 I
J 2024-04-09 Request to admit facts sent to Solicitors for D J
Request sent to police to prepare case materials
K K
2024-04-22 Response from Solicitors from Defence agreeing facts
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
DCCC 1197/2023
B B
[2024] HKDC 2117
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO 1197 OF 2023 E
F F
------------------------------------
G HKSAR G
H
v H
CHUI SIU LUNG
I I
------------------------------------
J J
Before: District Judge Clement Lee
K K
Date: 13 December 2024
L Present: Ms Whitfort Amanda, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR L
Mr Allan William, instructed by Messrs H. Y. Leung & Co.
M M
LLP for the defendant
N Offence: [1] Wounding with intent（有意圖而傷人） N
[2] Common assault（普通襲擊）
O O
P -------------------------------------- P
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Q Q
--------------------------------------
R R
Charges
S S
1. The defendant pleaded not guilty to two charges, Charge 1 is
T T
wounding with intent on PW1, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences
U U
V V
- 2 -
A A
against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212. Charge 2 is common assault on
B B
PW2, contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 40 of the
C Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212. He was convicted on C
both charges after trial. Since detailed account for the conviction can be
D D
found in my Reasons for Verdict, I set out the brief facts hereunder in so far
E as they are relevant to sentence. E
F F
Background
G G
2. The prosecution case, as accepted by me is that both the
H H
wounding and assault took place outside Block B, Beautiful Garden, No. 11
I Chui Lok Street, Tai Po, on 17 April 2020. The victims of Charges 1 and 2 I
J
are PW1 Mr Chan and PW2 Ms Chung respectively. In gist, on 17 April J
2020 at about 10pm, the defendant, former boyfriend of Ms Chung (PW2),
K K
made a phone call to PW2 and they had a chat over the telephone, follow by
L
a face to face chat at the scene. PW2 thought the defendant has left after the L
chat but shortly thereafter, the defendant returned, shouted with angry words,
M M
bended forward his upper body inside PW1’s car, hit PW1 with a glass cup
N (Charge 1). PW2 tried to pull the defendant but the defendant slapped her N
face and pushed her onto the ground (Charge 2). PW1’s right face was
O O
bleeding. At that time, PW1 was PW2’s boyfriend. PW1 sustained injuries
P to his right face, diagnosis and descriptions include 3 laceration wounds. P
Suturing was done.
Q Q
R Personal background of the defendant & mitigation R
S S
3. The defendant is now aged 44. He has received education up to
T form 4 level. He worked as a construction worker before arrest. He has a T
U U
V V
- 3 -
A A
spent conviction for the offence of betting with bookmaker in 1994 for being
B B
put in probation.
C C
4. In mitigation, Mr Allan submitted that firstly, there is
D D
prosecution delay. Secondly, the assault arose out of lovers’ dispute.
E Thirdly, there is no evidence of permanent injury and PW1’s wounds E
recovered well and there is no noticeable scars on his right face. I adjourned
F F
the sentence for the prosecution to prepare a prosecution’s chronological
G table. I also invite the parties to pay heed to the relevant case on prosecution G
delay: Chiu Chi Wing CACC 243/2012 and provide more examples of
H H
sentence involving lovers’ dispute resulting in assault.
I I
J
Sentence J
K K
5. The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for the
L
offence of wounding with intent is that of life imprisonment. Depending on L
the facts, the usual sentence is between 3 and 12 years. The gravity of the
M M
offence lies in the deliberate resort to violence with the intent by the
N offender to inflict by such violence really serious harm on the victim. N
O O
6. In HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat CACC 317/2012, The Court of
P Appeal stated that in determining the gravity of the offence, the factor of P
primary importance is the intent of the assailant to cause the victim really
Q Q
serious bodily harm. Whether that intent was fully realized in the injuries
R sought to be inflicted has been said to be of “secondary significance”. As R
the consequences to the victim may not be as the assailant
S S
intended. Tragically, they may be worse, but even when they are not or they
T are not as bad as the assailant hoped to achieve that may not lessen the T
U U
V V
- 4 -
A A
gravity of the offence. For the failure of the offender to achieve the level of
B B
harm he intended may be due to resistance by the victim, the intervention of
C others, speedy medical attention or purely unanticipated fortuitous C
circumstances. The Court of Appeal also identified certain usual factors
D D
relevant in sentencing:
E E
(1) the extent to which the assault was premeditated,
F F
(2) the reasons or motivation underlying the assault upon the victim,
G
(3) the mental or emotional state of the assailant at the time of the G
assault, whether alcohol or drugs contributed to the actions of the
H assailant, H
(4) whether the assault was committed by the assailant alone or as
I I
part of a group,
(5) the type of weapons employed,
J J
(6) the level of force or aggression and the persistence with which the
K assault was pressed home, K
(7) the injuries caused to the victim and the effect of the assault upon
L the victim and those close to him or her. L
M M
7. In HKSAR v Tung Pak Fai [2022] HKCA 1470, the Court of
N Appeal summarized the relevant factors when sentencing wounding with N
intent case:
O O
P “21.The relevant factors relevant to sentencing in wounding with P
intent cases were set out in HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat and
endorsed in HKSAR v Jatinder Singh. These include the extent to
Q Q
which the assault was premeditated, the reasons or motivation
underlying the assault upon the victim, the mental or emotional
R state of the assailant at the time of the assault, whether alcohol or R
drugs contributed to the actions of the assailant, whether the
assault was committed by the assailant alone or as part of a group,
S S
the type of weapons employed, and the level of force or aggression
and the persistence with which the assault was pressed home, the
T injuries caused to the victim and the effect of the assault upon the T
victim and those close to him or her (at paragraph 49, Chan Chun
U U
V V
- 5 -
A A
Tat). The list is not meant to be exhaustive but it purely
B demonstrates that the culpability of an offender of a wounding B
with intent charge will relate to the type of harm intended to be
inflicted, the means by which that harm was inflicted and the
C C
circumstances generally surrounding the assault. Given the many
imponderables as to why an assailant failed to achieve the
D injuries intended by him, the actual injuries caused is only one of D
the myriad of factors to be take into account. The gravamen of the
offence is in the intent to inflict really serious injuries, which is the
E same intent as that required for murder. The lack of serious E
injuries does not necessarily reduce the gravity of the offence or
F offset the other aggravating factors.” F
G G
8. In HKSAR v Ma Tik Lun Dicky CACC 112/2013, the Court of
H Appeal summarized the aggravating factors for sentencing wounding with H
I
intent cases as follows: I
“41.… [T]he aggravating factors for this type of wounding case
J J
are: (1) the defendant was the principal offender; (2) the assault
was committed in company; (3) the assault was unprovoked; (4)
K the assault took place in a public place; (5) the assault went on K
after the victim had fallen down; (6) the assault went on after the
victim became unable to defend himself; (7) the victim suffered
L L
serious and lasting injuries; (8) at the police interview, the
defendant misled the police as to the facts, indicating a lack of
M remorse…” M
N 9. Applying the above sentencing consideration into the present N
case, firstly, there is no evidence of premediated plan. I treated this case as
O O
coincident encounter and the defendant committed the offence at the spur of
P the moment. Secondly, I accept that this case might have arisen from the P
defendant's jealousy and anger. Had the defendant been able to control his
Q Q
temper, the assault could have been avoided. It seems that he just picked up
R the glass cup from nearby and hit PW1. While PW1’s injuries was not R
relatively serious in this category of offence, it is relevant to consider the
S S
pain and suffering as well as the agony arising from this traumatic
T T
experience. Having said that, I note that there is no permanent injury and
U U
V V
- 6 -
A A
PW1’s face did not exhibit noticeable scars as at the time of the trial. Lastly,
B B
although the defendant’s spent conviction dated back in 1994 and it is said
C to be as if it is a clear record. But case law suggests that clear record may C
not be considered as mitigating factor in serious offences calling for
D D
deterrent sentence.
E E
10. Sentencing of wounding offences is case specific and there is
F F
no tariff, by reason of the matters aforesaid, I adopt a starting point of 2.5
G years' imprisonment. G
H H
Prosecution’s delay
I I
J
11. In Chiu Chi Wing, the Court of Appeal considered and applied J
the seven factors identified by Buss JA, which were stated not to be intended
K K
to be exhaustive or inflexible, were:
L “ First, delay is not, of itself, a mitigating factor. L
M Secondly, delay will not ordinarily be a mitigating factor if it has M
been caused by difficulties in detecting, investigating or proving
the offences committed by the offender, and the period of the delay
N is reasonable in the circumstances. N
O Thirdly, delay will not ordinarily be a mitigating factor if it is O
caused by the offender’s obstruction or lack of co-operation with
the State, prosecuting authorities or investigatory bodies, but the
P P
offender’s reliance on his or her legal rights is not obstruction or
lack of co-operation for this purpose.
Q Q
Fourthly, delay will not ordinarily be a mitigating factor if it
results from the normal operation of the criminal justice system,
R R
including delay as a result of the offender or a co-offender
exercising his or her rights; for example, interlocutory appeals
S and other interlocutory processes. S
T Fifthly, delay may be conducive to the emergence of mitigating T
factors; for example, if, during the period of delay, the offender
U U
V V
- 7 -
A A
has made progress towards rehabilitation or other circumstances
B favourable to him or her have emerged. B
C Sixthly, delay (not being delay of the kind described in the second, C
third and fourth guiding principles) will ordinarily be a mitigating
factor if:
D D
(a) the delay has resulted in significant stress for the
E offender or left him or her, to a significant degree, in E
‘uncertain suspense’; or
F F
(b) during the period of delay the offender has adopted a
reasonable expectation that he or she would not be charged,
G or a pending prosecution would not proceed, and the G
offender has ordered his or her affairs on the faith of that
expectation.
H H
Seventhly, delay caused by dilatory or neglectful conduct by the
I State, prosecuting authorities or investigatory bodies may result I
in a discount of the sentence that would otherwise be imposed on
J
the offender, if the court thinks it an appropriate means of J
marking its disapproval of the conduct in question.”
K K
12. Applying the above factors into the present case and look into
L L
the prosecution’s chronology1, the defendant was arrested on 3 May 2020
M and he was charged on 1 December 2022, it took about 2 and a half years M
until prosecution was laid. However, there is about a 6 months’ period that
N N
the defendant exercised his right to dispute the arrangement of ID parade,
O with no fault on the prosecution. Taking to account the normal operation of O
investigation and legal advice, say one year, it seems that there is a delay of
P P
about one year. I therefore make a reduction of 2 months, the sentence for
Q Charge 1 is 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. Q
R R
13. Regarding Charge 2, the usual sentence for common assault is
S financial penalty or short imprisonment. I adopt a starting point of 6 weeks’ S
T T
1
See Appendix 1
U U
V V
- 8 -
A A
imprisonment and reduce it to 5 weeks for prosecution delay.
B B
C 14. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant C
any further reduction.
D D
E 15. As the facts of Charges 1 and 2 are overlapping, I order E
sentence on both charges be made concurrent, the total sentence is 2 years
F F
and 4 months’ imprisonment.
G G
H H
I ( Clement Lee ) I
District Judge
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 9 -
A A
Appendix 1: Prosecution’s chronology
B B
C Date Event C
2020-05-03 D was arrested
D D
2020-10-19 PW1 was first contacted by the Police for the arrangement of
E E
an ID parade
F 2020-12-18 The 1st ID parade was held but was eventually cancelled by the F
OC parade as the requests made by the Defence Counsel was
G considered unreasonable G
H 2021-05-31 The 2nd ID parade was held but was eventually cancelled by H
the OC again as the Defence Counsel was dissatisfied with the
arrangement of the actors
I I
2022-04-21 D was temporarily released as the Police wanted legal advice
J J
from DOJ on whether to charge D
K 2022-07-25 PW1 and PW2 confirmed that they would pursue the case and K
were willing to testify
L L
2022-07-28 Photos regarding PW1’s recovery were taken in Tai Po Police
M Station M
N
2022-08-18 Request for legal advice sent by police to DOJ N
2022-09-27 Legal Advice from DOJ required police to seek further
O O
statement from PW2 clarifying details and resubmit for their
advice before charging D
P P
2022-10-24 Further statement was taken from PW2 by police pursuant to
Q Legal Advice from DOJ Q
R 2022-10-30 Further statement of PW2 submitted to DOJ R
S
2022-12-01 DOJ recommends charges against D and trial in DC S
2022-12-23 Further statement was taken from PW2 again to clarify
T T
ambiguities
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
2023-03-15 D was put on watch/wanted list as multiple attempts were
made to reach him but to no avail
C C
2023-10-12 D was arrested at Lo Ma Chau Boundary Control Point
D D
2023-10-14 D was charged
E E
2023-11-17 Instructions to Plea Day Counsel signed by SPP
F F
2023-11-24 Case transferred to DC
G G
2023-12-05 Summary of Facts and Schedule of Prosecution witnesses
signed by SPP
H H
2024-02-20 Mentioned in DC – case set down for 2-day trial on 25 and 26
I Nov 2024 I
J 2024-04-09 Request to admit facts sent to Solicitors for D J
Request sent to police to prepare case materials
K K
2024-04-22 Response from Solicitors from Defence agreeing facts
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V