A HCCC 402/2023 A
[2025] HKCFI 4076
B IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
C C
CRIMINAL CASE NO 402 OF 2023
D ----------------- D
HKSAR
E E
v
F F
Arif Aqib (A1)
Mohammad Shahzeb (A2)
G G
------------------
H Before: Hon Anna Lai J H
Date: 8 August 2025 at 4.41 pm
I
Present: Mr Mark H T Wei, leading Mr Wong Sze-hei Schweitzer, on I
fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Neil Simon Mitchell, instructed by Jesse H Y Kwok &
J Co, assigned by DLA, for the 1st accused J
Mr Hanif Mohamed Mughal, leading Ms Leung Ka-yee
Esther, instructed by King & Co, assigned by DLA, for
K the 2nd accused K
Offence: (1) Murder (謀殺)
L (2) to (3) Wounding with intent (傷人) L
---------------------------------
M Transcript of the Audio Recording M
of the Sentence in the above Case
N --------------------------------- N
COURT: Both defendants were jointly charged with one count of
O murder and two counts of wounding with intent. In respect O
of the allegations of the prosecution, it was alleged that
in the evening on the 13th day of November 2017, at about
P 11 pm, a group of attackers of five to seven persons, armed P
with knives and iron bars, attacked a total of six Pakistani
Q males who were having a social gathering at the pavilion in Q
the Ngau Tau Kok Park on Ngau Tau Kok Road.
R Both defendants pleaded not guilty to all the charges. R
After trial, each of them was convicted by the jury of
wounding without intent, contrary to section 19 of the
S S
Offences Against the Persons Ordinance, Chapter 212, on all
three counts.
T T
On the verdict of the jury, it would appear that they were
satisfied that at the time of the incident, even though both
U defendants were part of the joint enterprise of this attack, U
CRT18/8.8.2025/CSY 1 HCCC 402/2023(19)/Sentence
V V
A they did not realise that a weapon would be used in the A
course of the attack. To that regard I have to pay respect
to the jury’s verdict, and I do bear this matter in mind
B when I consider the sentence to be imposed on the B
defendants.
C C
The 1st defendant is now 30 years of age. He was aged 22 at
the time of the offences. He has received Form 2 education
D and worked as a bar bender at the material time. He is a D
Pakistani male. He was arrested on 10 December 2017 in
respect of this matter, and he has been detained for this
E matter for over seven and a half years. E
He has a total of eight criminal convictions, two of which
F F
are related to offences of violence. In September 2010, he
was convicted of the offence of assault occasioning actual
G bodily harm and was sentenced to 18 months’ probation order. G
In October 2015, he was convicted of the offence of robbery
and was sentenced to the training centre. I note that when
H he was convicted of those offences, he was aged 15 and 20 H
respectively.
I I
In respect of the 2nd defendant, he is also a Pakistani
male, and he has a clear record. He is now 24 years old.
J At the time of the offence he was 17 years old. He was a J
Form 3 student then. He was arrested in respect of this
case on 12 January 2018, and again he has been detained for
K over seven and a half years. K
L The maximum sentence for wounding under section 19 of the L
Offences Against the Persons Ordinance is 3 years’
imprisonment. All three offences arose from the same
M factual matrix, and it would be appropriate for me to take M
an overall view of the matter in consideration of the
appropriate sentence. I think it is more appropriate for me
N to adopt the approach of imposing a global sentence for all N
three offences and then impose the same sentence in respect
O of each count, and order all of them to be served O
concurrently.
P I have taken into account the gravity of the offences. This P
is a brutal, unprovoked and premeditated attack on a group
of males who were only enjoying their drinks or chit-
Q Q
chatting at the pavilion, and they were totally unarmed.
Bearing in mind the background and the facts of the case,
R the number of persons being attacked, the result that one of R
them was killed and two others were injured - even though
the injuries and the consequences were not intended by these
S two defendants as one could see from the jury’s verdict. In S
any event, they did take part in a joint enterprise
involving the attack by a group of persons on another group
T T
of persons. This is an unprovoked attack that occurred in a
public place, in a park, at night time.
U U
CRT18/8.8.2025/CSY 2 HCCC 402/2023(19)/Sentence
V V
A Having considered the seriousness of the offences, I A
consider that the facts of this case justify the imposition
of the maximum sentence. So, taking a global view of the
B matter, the overall sentence for all three counts in respect B
of the 1st defendant should be 3 years’ imprisonment, and
that 3 years’ imprisonment is also the sentence I impose on
C C
each of Counts 1, 2 and 3, all of them to be served
concurrently.
D D
In respect of the 2nd defendant, I am also of the view that
he had the same culpability as the 1st defendant. So the
E overall sentence to be imposed for the 2nd defendant in E
respect of all three offences is also one of 3 years’
imprisonment. I will also impose an individual sentence of
F F
3 years for each of Counts 1, 2 and 3, and order all the
three counts to be served concurrently.
G G
Therefore, the overall sentence for each of the 1st and the
2nd defendant is 3 years’ imprisonment.
H H
I I
I/we certify that to the best of my/our ability
J and skill, the foregoing is a true transcript of J
the audio recording of the above proceedings.
K K
L ............................................... L
Chan Shuk Ying Susanna
Date: 22 August 2025
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT18/8.8.2025/CSY 3 HCCC 402/2023(19)/Sentence
V V
HKSAR v. ARIF AQIB
案件基本資料
案件名稱：HKSAR v Arif Aqib (A1) & Mohammad Shahzeb (A2)
本案的核心 legal issue 在於量刑 (sentencing)。雖然被告最初被控謀殺，但陪審團裁定其罪名為 wounding without intent（根據 Cap 212 s.19）。法官需考慮被告在 joint enterprise 中的 culpability，以及襲擊的殘暴程度與被告個人背景（如 A1 的犯罪紀錄及 A2 的年齡）對刑期之影響。
判決理由
法官認為儘管陪審團裁定被告並未預見會使用武器，但該襲擊屬 premeditated、unprovoked 且發生在公共場所，性質極其殘暴。由於所有罪項源於同一 factual matrix，法官採取 global sentence 方式處理。考慮到罪行嚴重性，法官裁定應處以 Cap 212 s.19 下的 maximum sentence。
引用案例與條文
引用了《侵害身體條例》(Offences Against the Persons Ordinance) 第 212 章第 19 條 (section 19)，該 statutory provision 規定 wounding 的最高刑期為 3 年監禁。
### 案件基本資料
- 案件名稱：HKSAR v Arif Aqib (A1) & Mohammad Shahzeb (A2)
- 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (CFI)
- 法官：Anna Lai
- 判決日期：2025年8月8日
### 案情摘要
2017年11月13日晚上約11時，五至七名持有刀具及鐵棒的襲擊者在牛頭 góc 公園亭襲擊六名正在社交聚會的巴基斯坦男性。兩名被告參與了此次 joint enterprise。襲擊導致一名被害人死亡，另外兩人受傷。兩名被告最初被控謀殺及意圖傷人，但最終被陪審團裁定罪名較輕。
### 核心法律爭議
本案的核心 legal issue 在於量刑 (sentencing)。雖然被告最初被控謀殺，但陪審團裁定其罪名為 wounding without intent（根據 Cap 212 s.19）。法官需考慮被告在 joint enterprise 中的 culpability，以及襲擊的殘暴程度與被告個人背景（如 A1 的犯罪紀錄及 A2 的年齡）對刑期之影響。
### 判決理由
法官認為儘管陪審團裁定被告並未預見會使用武器，但該襲擊屬 premeditated、unprovoked 且發生在公共場所，性質極其殘暴。由於所有罪項源於同一 factual matrix，法官採取 global sentence 方式處理。考慮到罪行嚴重性，法官裁定應處以 Cap 212 s.19 下的 maximum sentence。
### 引用案例與條文
引用了《侵害身體條例》(Offences Against the Persons Ordinance) 第 212 章第 19 條 (section 19)，該 statutory provision 規定 wounding 的最高刑期為 3 年監禁。
### 裁決與命令
兩名被告均被判處 3 年監禁。針對三項罪名，每項均判處 3 年，並命令所有刑期 concurrent（同時執行）。
### 判決啟示
本案顯示即使在涉及死亡的嚴重暴力事件中，若陪審團裁定被告缺乏特定意圖 (intent)，法官將尊重陪審團裁決並根據較輕罪名量刑，但仍會因襲擊的 premeditated 性質而傾向處以最高刑期。
---
### 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 Arif Aqib (A1) & Mohammad Shahzeb (A2)
- Court: Court of First Instance (CFI)
- Judge: Anna Lai
- Date of Judgment: 8 August 2025
### Factual Background
On 13 November 2017, a group of five to seven armed attackers targeted six unarmed Pakistani males gathering at Ngau Tau Kok Park. The attack resulted in one death and two injuries. The two defendants were part of the joint enterprise. While originally charged with murder and wounding with intent, they were convicted by a jury of wounding without intent.
### Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was the determination of an appropriate sentence following the jury's verdict. The court had to balance the brutality of the unprovoked, premeditated attack against the jury's finding that the defendants did not realize weapons would be used, as well as the defendants' personal backgrounds and prior records.
### Ratio Decidendi
The judge analyzed the gravity of the offence, noting it was a brutal attack in a public place. Despite the lack of intent regarding the weapons, the defendants' participation in the joint enterprise justified a severe penalty. The judge applied a global sentencing approach for the three counts arising from the same factual matrix.
### Key Precedents & Statutes
Section 19 of the Offences Against the Persons Ordinance (Cap 212) was the primary statutory provision, which sets the maximum penalty for wounding at 3 years' imprisonment.
### Decision & Orders
Both defendants were sentenced to a total of 3 years' imprisonment. Each of the three counts was sentenced to 3 years, to be served concurrently.
### Key Takeaways
The judgment emphasizes that while the court respects the jury's verdict on the lack of intent, the premeditated and brutal nature of a group attack in public can still justify the imposition of the maximum statutory sentence for the lesser offence.
---
### 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 HCCC 402/2023 A
[2025] HKCFI 4076
B IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
C C
CRIMINAL CASE NO 402 OF 2023
D ----------------- D
HKSAR
E E
v
F F
Arif Aqib (A1)
Mohammad Shahzeb (A2)
G G
------------------
H Before: Hon Anna Lai J H
Date: 8 August 2025 at 4.41 pm
I
Present: Mr Mark H T Wei, leading Mr Wong Sze-hei Schweitzer, on I
fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Neil Simon Mitchell, instructed by Jesse H Y Kwok &
J Co, assigned by DLA, for the 1st accused J
Mr Hanif Mohamed Mughal, leading Ms Leung Ka-yee
Esther, instructed by King & Co, assigned by DLA, for
K the 2nd accused K
Offence: (1) Murder (謀殺)
L (2) to (3) Wounding with intent (傷人) L
---------------------------------
M Transcript of the Audio Recording M
of the Sentence in the above Case
N --------------------------------- N
COURT: Both defendants were jointly charged with one count of
O murder and two counts of wounding with intent. In respect O
of the allegations of the prosecution, it was alleged that
in the evening on the 13th day of November 2017, at about
P 11 pm, a group of attackers of five to seven persons, armed P
with knives and iron bars, attacked a total of six Pakistani
Q males who were having a social gathering at the pavilion in Q
the Ngau Tau Kok Park on Ngau Tau Kok Road.
R Both defendants pleaded not guilty to all the charges. R
After trial, each of them was convicted by the jury of
wounding without intent, contrary to section 19 of the
S S
Offences Against the Persons Ordinance, Chapter 212, on all
three counts.
T T
On the verdict of the jury, it would appear that they were
satisfied that at the time of the incident, even though both
U defendants were part of the joint enterprise of this attack, U
CRT18/8.8.2025/CSY 1 HCCC 402/2023(19)/Sentence
V V
A they did not realise that a weapon would be used in the A
course of the attack. To that regard I have to pay respect
to the jury’s verdict, and I do bear this matter in mind
B when I consider the sentence to be imposed on the B
defendants.
C C
The 1st defendant is now 30 years of age. He was aged 22 at
the time of the offences. He has received Form 2 education
D and worked as a bar bender at the material time. He is a D
Pakistani male. He was arrested on 10 December 2017 in
respect of this matter, and he has been detained for this
E matter for over seven and a half years. E
He has a total of eight criminal convictions, two of which
F F
are related to offences of violence. In September 2010, he
was convicted of the offence of assault occasioning actual
G bodily harm and was sentenced to 18 months’ probation order. G
In October 2015, he was convicted of the offence of robbery
and was sentenced to the training centre. I note that when
H he was convicted of those offences, he was aged 15 and 20 H
respectively.
I I
In respect of the 2nd defendant, he is also a Pakistani
male, and he has a clear record. He is now 24 years old.
J At the time of the offence he was 17 years old. He was a J
Form 3 student then. He was arrested in respect of this
case on 12 January 2018, and again he has been detained for
K over seven and a half years. K
L The maximum sentence for wounding under section 19 of the L
Offences Against the Persons Ordinance is 3 years’
imprisonment. All three offences arose from the same
M factual matrix, and it would be appropriate for me to take M
an overall view of the matter in consideration of the
appropriate sentence. I think it is more appropriate for me
N to adopt the approach of imposing a global sentence for all N
three offences and then impose the same sentence in respect
O of each count, and order all of them to be served O
concurrently.
P I have taken into account the gravity of the offences. This P
is a brutal, unprovoked and premeditated attack on a group
of males who were only enjoying their drinks or chit-
Q Q
chatting at the pavilion, and they were totally unarmed.
Bearing in mind the background and the facts of the case,
R the number of persons being attacked, the result that one of R
them was killed and two others were injured - even though
the injuries and the consequences were not intended by these
S two defendants as one could see from the jury’s verdict. In S
any event, they did take part in a joint enterprise
involving the attack by a group of persons on another group
T T
of persons. This is an unprovoked attack that occurred in a
public place, in a park, at night time.
U U
CRT18/8.8.2025/CSY 2 HCCC 402/2023(19)/Sentence
V V
A Having considered the seriousness of the offences, I A
consider that the facts of this case justify the imposition
of the maximum sentence. So, taking a global view of the
B matter, the overall sentence for all three counts in respect B
of the 1st defendant should be 3 years’ imprisonment, and
that 3 years’ imprisonment is also the sentence I impose on
C C
each of Counts 1, 2 and 3, all of them to be served
concurrently.
D D
In respect of the 2nd defendant, I am also of the view that
he had the same culpability as the 1st defendant. So the
E overall sentence to be imposed for the 2nd defendant in E
respect of all three offences is also one of 3 years’
imprisonment. I will also impose an individual sentence of
F F
3 years for each of Counts 1, 2 and 3, and order all the
three counts to be served concurrently.
G G
Therefore, the overall sentence for each of the 1st and the
2nd defendant is 3 years’ imprisonment.
H H
I I
I/we certify that to the best of my/our ability
J and skill, the foregoing is a true transcript of J
the audio recording of the above proceedings.
K K
L ............................................... L
Chan Shuk Ying Susanna
Date: 22 August 2025
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT18/8.8.2025/CSY 3 HCCC 402/2023(19)/Sentence
V V