DCCC157/2017 HKSAR v. SIU LOK MAN AND OTHERS - LawHero
DCCC157/2017
區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Jason Wan8/8/2017
DCCC157/2017
A A
B B
DCCC 157/2017
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO 157 OF 2017 E
F F
----------------------------
G HKSAR G
v
H H
SIU LOK MAN (D1)
I LAW BO YI (D2) I
NIP HON MAN (D3)
J J
----------------------------
K K
Before: Deputy District Judge Jason Wan
L L
Date: 9 August 2017
M Present: Ms Memi Ng, Counsel on Fiat, for HKSAR M
Mr Oliver Davies, instructed by Wong & Co, for the 1st to 3rd
N N
defendants
O Offence: [1] Conspiracy to wound with intent（串謀有意圖而傷人） - O
P
D1 to D3 P
[2] Possession of an offensive weapon in a public place（在公
Q Q
眾地方管有攻擊性武器） - D2
R [3] and [6] Possession of an offensive weapon in a public place R
（在公眾地方管有攻擊性武器）- D1
S S
[4] Driving an unlicensed vehicle（駕駛未領牌車輛） - D1
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
[5] Using a motor vehicle without third party insurance（沒有
C 第三者保險而使用汽車） - D1 C
D D
---------------------------------------
E REASONS FOR SENTENCE E
---------------------------------------
F F
G G
1. There are three defendants in this case. D1 to D3 are jointly
H
charged with one count of “Conspiracy to wound with intent” (Charge 1), H
contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap
I I
212, and sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. D2
J
is further charged with one count of “Possession of an offensive weapon in J
a public place” (Charge 2), contrary to section 33(1) of the Public Order
K K
Ordinance, Cap 245. D1 is further charged with two counts of “Possession
L of offensive weapon in a public place (Charge 3 and Charge 6), one count L
of “Driving an unlicensed vehicle” (Charge 4), contrary to section 52(1)(a)
M M
and (10)(a) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374 and one count of
N “Using a motor vehicle without third party insurance (Charge 5), contrary N
to section 4(1) and (2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party
O O
Risks) Ordinance, Cap 272.
P P
2. After D1 pleaded guilty to Charges 1, 3 to 6 and D2 pleaded
Q Q
guilty to Charges 1 and 2, the prosecution offered no evidence against D3
R on Charge 1 and therefore it was left in court file. Now the court deals with R
the sentence of D1 and D2.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
Summary of facts
C C
3. At all material times, Mr Cheng King Cheung (“PW1”)
D D
worked as a salesperson at Sasa Cosmetic Shop at 2/F, Tai Po Mega Mall,
E On Pong Road, Tai Po, the New Territories, Hong Kong (“the Mall”). In E
early September 2016, PW1 had a dispute with a man in a bar in Tai Po.
F F
He did not have any other dispute with anyone else.
G G
4. On 15 November 2016 at around 8:45 pm, D1 drove a private
H H
vehicle bearing registration plate TX510 (“V1”) to the Mall and stopped at
I the entrance. D2 and another man, both wearing surgical masks, alighted I
V1 and walked into the Mall. Police officers intercepted them on the 2 nd
J J
Floor of the Mall (Charge 1). Upon search on D2, a beef knife with a blade
K of 35 cm and its handle wrapped in bandage was found (Charge 2). D2 K
was arrested.
L L
M 5. At around the same time, D1 was also intercepted by police M
officers when he was still seated in the driver’s seat of V1 with its engine
N N
running. Upon search on V1, the police found three balaclavas, two pairs
O of gloves, a beef knife and two sheathes (Charge 3). D1 was arrested. O
P P
6. Under caution, D1 admitted that he was driving a few
Q “brothers” to the scene to chop a man who had defected to another triad Q
faction. Upon further enquiry, D1 said he had driven others to chop PW1
R R
who was working at “Sasa” and he was only responsible for driving. He
S also said his own car bearing registration mark TD7457 (“V2”) was parked S
at Tai Po Industrial Estate.
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
7. Police later located V2 at Tai Po Industrial Estate. Upon
C search on V2, a knife with a blade of 38 cm with its handle wrapped in C
bandage was found inside a nylon bag placed inside the boot (Charge 6).
D D
E 8. Subsequent investigation revealed that the licence of V1 had E
expired. Further V1 did not have in force a policy of insurance in respect
F F
of third party risks as required by the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third
G Party Risks) Ordinance (Charges 4 and 5). G
H H
Mitigation
I I
9. D1 is 38 years old and married. He has two young children,
J J
aged 4 and 5. His wife, aged 29, is a housewife. He lives with his parents,
K his wife and two children. He received secondary education and has been K
working as a technician for some years earning about HK$20,000 per
L L
month. He is the sole breadwinner of the family. D1 has three previous
M convictions and all of them are related to selling infringing copyright goods. M
N N
10. D2 is 27 years of age and is single. He lives with his 80-year-
O old grandmother in a public housing unit. He received Form 4 education O
and used to work as assistant cook and air conditioning technician. Before
P P
he was arrested, he was a construction site worker earning about
Q HK$22,000 per month. D2 has four previous convictions and all of them Q
are drug-related.
R R
S 11. Defence submitted that both D1 and D2 are very remorseful S
now. They both pleaded guilty to the charges. Though they both have
T T
some previous convictions but none of them are related to violence. In
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
D1’s case, his last conviction was 19 years ago. It was submitted that there
C is no evidence to show that the defendants intended to cause life- C
threatening harm to the victim and in fact no one was injured in this case.
D D
All in all, defence urged the court to impose a lenient sentence on both
E defendants. As all the charges were arising from the same incident, E
defence asked the court to consider the totality principle and to order the
F F
sentence to be served concurrently.
G G
Sentencing consideration
H H
I 12. D1 and D2 are jointly charged with Charge 1 and it is the most I
serious charge in this case. Even if the attack was not carried out and no
J J
harm was done to anyone, the offence remains a very serious one and
K custodial sentence of considerable length is definitely the only option. K
Concerning the other charges, as submitted by the defence, I accept that
L L
they are just part and parcel to Charge 1.
M M
13. Time and again, the Court of Appeal has indicated that there
N N
is no sentencing tariff for the offence of wounding with intent. Each case
O must be approached on its own facts. In this case, I am of the view that the O
aggravating features include:-
P P
Q (1) It was a pre-meditated attack; Q
R R
(2) The attack involved more than one perpetrator;
S S
(3) Weapons would have been used if the attack was
T T
carried out.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
C 14. If the attack was actually carried out and serious harm was C
caused to the victim, this court is of the view that the starting point should
D D
be at least 4 years’ imprisonment and it will be adjusted upwards depending
E on the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the victim. However, in this E
case, the attack was stopped by the police before it was carried out. Though
F F
the circumstances are still serious, the sentence should reflect the fact that
G no one was injured in the incident. G
H H
15. Considered all the circumstances, the appropriate starting
I point for Charge 1 should be 3 years’ imprisonment. D1 and D2 both I
pleaded guilty to the charge and I give them one-third discount. Therefore,
J J
for Charge 1, both defendants are sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment. For
K Charge 2 against D2, Charges 3 and 6 against D1, I adopt 12 months’ K
imprisonment as the starting point. They pleaded guilty to these charges
L L
and are entitled to have one-third discount. Therefore, for Charge 2, D2 is
M sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment. For Charges 3 and 6, D1 is M
sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment.
N N
O 16. After considered the totality principle, for D1, I order the O
sentence of Charges 1, 3 and 6 to be served wholly concurrently. The total
P P
sentence is 2 years’ imprisonment. For D2, I also order the sentence of
Q Charges 1 and 2 to be served concurrently. The total sentence for D2 is Q
also 2 years’ imprisonment.
R R
S 17. For the remaining Charge 4, D1 is fined $3,000. For Charge S
5, D1 is fined $5,000 and disqualified from holding and obtaining any
T T
driving licence for a period of 12 months. I direct under section 69A(2) of
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
the Road Traffic Ordinance that such disqualification period is not to start
C to run until his previous disqualification order is expired. D1 is given 6 C
months to pay the total fine of $8,000. He is also warned that driving while
D D
disqualified is a serious offence and if convicted, very likely the sentence
E will be a term of imprisonment. E
F F
G G
( Jason Wan )
H Deputy District Judge 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
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 157/2017
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D D
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
E CRIMINAL CASE NO 157 OF 2017 E
F F
----------------------------
G HKSAR G
v
H H
SIU LOK MAN (D1)
I LAW BO YI (D2) I
NIP HON MAN (D3)
J J
----------------------------
K K
Before: Deputy District Judge Jason Wan
L L
Date: 9 August 2017
M Present: Ms Memi Ng, Counsel on Fiat, for HKSAR M
Mr Oliver Davies, instructed by Wong & Co, for the 1st to 3rd
N N
defendants
O Offence: [1] Conspiracy to wound with intent（串謀有意圖而傷人） - O
P
D1 to D3 P
[2] Possession of an offensive weapon in a public place（在公
Q Q
眾地方管有攻擊性武器） - D2
R [3] and [6] Possession of an offensive weapon in a public place R
（在公眾地方管有攻擊性武器）- D1
S S
[4] Driving an unlicensed vehicle（駕駛未領牌車輛） - D1
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
[5] Using a motor vehicle without third party insurance（沒有
C 第三者保險而使用汽車） - D1 C
D D
---------------------------------------
E REASONS FOR SENTENCE E
---------------------------------------
F F
G G
1. There are three defendants in this case. D1 to D3 are jointly
H
charged with one count of “Conspiracy to wound with intent” (Charge 1), H
contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap
I I
212, and sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. D2
J
is further charged with one count of “Possession of an offensive weapon in J
a public place” (Charge 2), contrary to section 33(1) of the Public Order
K K
Ordinance, Cap 245. D1 is further charged with two counts of “Possession
L of offensive weapon in a public place (Charge 3 and Charge 6), one count L
of “Driving an unlicensed vehicle” (Charge 4), contrary to section 52(1)(a)
M M
and (10)(a) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374 and one count of
N “Using a motor vehicle without third party insurance (Charge 5), contrary N
to section 4(1) and (2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party
O O
Risks) Ordinance, Cap 272.
P P
2. After D1 pleaded guilty to Charges 1, 3 to 6 and D2 pleaded
Q Q
guilty to Charges 1 and 2, the prosecution offered no evidence against D3
R on Charge 1 and therefore it was left in court file. Now the court deals with R
the sentence of D1 and D2.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
Summary of facts
C C
3. At all material times, Mr Cheng King Cheung (“PW1”)
D D
worked as a salesperson at Sasa Cosmetic Shop at 2/F, Tai Po Mega Mall,
E On Pong Road, Tai Po, the New Territories, Hong Kong (“the Mall”). In E
early September 2016, PW1 had a dispute with a man in a bar in Tai Po.
F F
He did not have any other dispute with anyone else.
G G
4. On 15 November 2016 at around 8:45 pm, D1 drove a private
H H
vehicle bearing registration plate TX510 (“V1”) to the Mall and stopped at
I the entrance. D2 and another man, both wearing surgical masks, alighted I
V1 and walked into the Mall. Police officers intercepted them on the 2 nd
J J
Floor of the Mall (Charge 1). Upon search on D2, a beef knife with a blade
K of 35 cm and its handle wrapped in bandage was found (Charge 2). D2 K
was arrested.
L L
M 5. At around the same time, D1 was also intercepted by police M
officers when he was still seated in the driver’s seat of V1 with its engine
N N
running. Upon search on V1, the police found three balaclavas, two pairs
O of gloves, a beef knife and two sheathes (Charge 3). D1 was arrested. O
P P
6. Under caution, D1 admitted that he was driving a few
Q “brothers” to the scene to chop a man who had defected to another triad Q
faction. Upon further enquiry, D1 said he had driven others to chop PW1
R R
who was working at “Sasa” and he was only responsible for driving. He
S also said his own car bearing registration mark TD7457 (“V2”) was parked S
at Tai Po Industrial Estate.
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
7. Police later located V2 at Tai Po Industrial Estate. Upon
C search on V2, a knife with a blade of 38 cm with its handle wrapped in C
bandage was found inside a nylon bag placed inside the boot (Charge 6).
D D
E 8. Subsequent investigation revealed that the licence of V1 had E
expired. Further V1 did not have in force a policy of insurance in respect
F F
of third party risks as required by the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third
G Party Risks) Ordinance (Charges 4 and 5). G
H H
Mitigation
I I
9. D1 is 38 years old and married. He has two young children,
J J
aged 4 and 5. His wife, aged 29, is a housewife. He lives with his parents,
K his wife and two children. He received secondary education and has been K
working as a technician for some years earning about HK$20,000 per
L L
month. He is the sole breadwinner of the family. D1 has three previous
M convictions and all of them are related to selling infringing copyright goods. M
N N
10. D2 is 27 years of age and is single. He lives with his 80-year-
O old grandmother in a public housing unit. He received Form 4 education O
and used to work as assistant cook and air conditioning technician. Before
P P
he was arrested, he was a construction site worker earning about
Q HK$22,000 per month. D2 has four previous convictions and all of them Q
are drug-related.
R R
S 11. Defence submitted that both D1 and D2 are very remorseful S
now. They both pleaded guilty to the charges. Though they both have
T T
some previous convictions but none of them are related to violence. In
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
D1’s case, his last conviction was 19 years ago. It was submitted that there
C is no evidence to show that the defendants intended to cause life- C
threatening harm to the victim and in fact no one was injured in this case.
D D
All in all, defence urged the court to impose a lenient sentence on both
E defendants. As all the charges were arising from the same incident, E
defence asked the court to consider the totality principle and to order the
F F
sentence to be served concurrently.
G G
Sentencing consideration
H H
I 12. D1 and D2 are jointly charged with Charge 1 and it is the most I
serious charge in this case. Even if the attack was not carried out and no
J J
harm was done to anyone, the offence remains a very serious one and
K custodial sentence of considerable length is definitely the only option. K
Concerning the other charges, as submitted by the defence, I accept that
L L
they are just part and parcel to Charge 1.
M M
13. Time and again, the Court of Appeal has indicated that there
N N
is no sentencing tariff for the offence of wounding with intent. Each case
O must be approached on its own facts. In this case, I am of the view that the O
aggravating features include:-
P P
Q (1) It was a pre-meditated attack; Q
R R
(2) The attack involved more than one perpetrator;
S S
(3) Weapons would have been used if the attack was
T T
carried out.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
C 14. If the attack was actually carried out and serious harm was C
caused to the victim, this court is of the view that the starting point should
D D
be at least 4 years’ imprisonment and it will be adjusted upwards depending
E on the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the victim. However, in this E
case, the attack was stopped by the police before it was carried out. Though
F F
the circumstances are still serious, the sentence should reflect the fact that
G no one was injured in the incident. G
H H
15. Considered all the circumstances, the appropriate starting
I point for Charge 1 should be 3 years’ imprisonment. D1 and D2 both I
pleaded guilty to the charge and I give them one-third discount. Therefore,
J J
for Charge 1, both defendants are sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment. For
K Charge 2 against D2, Charges 3 and 6 against D1, I adopt 12 months’ K
imprisonment as the starting point. They pleaded guilty to these charges
L L
and are entitled to have one-third discount. Therefore, for Charge 2, D2 is
M sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment. For Charges 3 and 6, D1 is M
sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment.
N N
O 16. After considered the totality principle, for D1, I order the O
sentence of Charges 1, 3 and 6 to be served wholly concurrently. The total
P P
sentence is 2 years’ imprisonment. For D2, I also order the sentence of
Q Charges 1 and 2 to be served concurrently. The total sentence for D2 is Q
also 2 years’ imprisonment.
R R
S 17. For the remaining Charge 4, D1 is fined $3,000. For Charge S
5, D1 is fined $5,000 and disqualified from holding and obtaining any
T T
driving licence for a period of 12 months. I direct under section 69A(2) of
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
the Road Traffic Ordinance that such disqualification period is not to start
C to run until his previous disqualification order is expired. D1 is given 6 C
months to pay the total fine of $8,000. He is also warned that driving while
D D
disqualified is a serious offence and if convicted, very likely the sentence
E will be a term of imprisonment. E
F F
G G
( Jason Wan )
H Deputy District Judge 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
V V