HKSAR v. LAU HIN YEUNG AND ANOTHER

DCCC 620/2025

[2026] HKDC 785

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 620 OF 2025

————————

————————

————————————————

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

————————————————

1.  D1 & D2 face a Charge Sheet consisting of 3 charges.  Charge 3 against D3 Yeung Wang Tat only has already been dealt with by DDJ R Wong: [2025] HKDC 1533 refers.

2.  Charge 1 against both D1 and D2 is Assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 39 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212.  Particulars are that D1 and D2, on 21 August 2024, near Lamppost No FA6063, Kwai Chung Road, Kwai Chung, New Territories, in Hong Kong, assaulted Chui Sing Hoi, thereby occasioning him actual bodily harm.

3.  Charge 2 against D1 only is Attempted robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210, and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.  Particulars are that D1, on same date, at same place, attempted to rob Chui Sing Hoi.

4.  Before me, D1 and D2 each pleaded guilty to Charge 1^[1].

5.  Prosecution asked that Charge 2 against D1 be left on court file not to be proceeded with without the leave of this court or the Court of Appeal.  Upon the conviction of D1 on Charge 1, I so ordered.

Facts admitted by D1 and D2

6.  On 21 August 2024, shortly after 11 pm, PW1 Chui left his workplace on Kwai Chung Road and walked to a nearby bus stop to catch a bus home.  He was being followed by D1 and further away by D2.

7.  When PW1 was queuing at the bus stop, D1 suddenly approached PW1 and swore at him.  D1 punched PW1’s mouth once.  The two persons then had a scuffle.  PW1 lost balance and fell.  D1’s baseball cap also fell on the ground.  Throughout this time, D2 was nearby and filming the incident with his phone.

8.  Officers on board a passing police vehicle saw the incident and intervened.  D1 fled while D2 stayed and helped PW1 to pick up dropped items. D2 took D1’s cap and walked away, leaving behind PW1 and the police.

9.  PW1 was conveyed to Princess Margaret Hospital where he was found to have sustained the following injuries/discomfort:-

(a) Painful right hand grip; and

(b) Tenderness, redness, bruising and abrasions to upper lip, right elbow, right wrist, both hands and right knee.

10.  PW1 was treated and discharged.

11.  CCTV near the crime scene show D1 and D2 wandering in the vicinity since about 10:51 pm.

12.  On 24 August 2024, D2 was arrested outside his residence.  Under caution, D2 said, “I simply received order to do the job.  It was Ah Yeung who asked me to go help filming, I did not hit him.”

13.  In the subsequent VRI, D2 stated that:-

(a) D1 asked him to take a video of D1 slapping PW1 with a promised reward of $1,000;

(b) D1 had previously sent him a photo of PW1 and his work address via whatsapp;

(c) D1 instructed him to go inside the building where PW1 worked and wait for PW1;

(d) When he saw PW1, he followed PW1 to the bus stop;

(e) At the bus stop, he sent a “hit” message to D1;

(f) He filmed the assault incident;

(g) Out of conscience, he helped PW1 pick up the items dropped;

(h) He picked up D1’s cap and took it to D1 in Shek Kip Mei but D1 directed him to discard it;

(i) He sent the assault video to D1 via whatsapp; and

(j) He was only paid $500 in the end.

14.  On 25 August 2024, D1 was arrested outside his residence.  Under caution, D1 said, “I simply received order to do the job.”

15.  In the subsequent VRI, D1 stated that:-

(a) On 21 August 2024, he received an order from one “Ah Man” via Telegram to punch or slap PW1 a few times for a reward of $2,500;

(b) The assault had to be filmed before payment would be made;

(c) Ah Man sent him the address and photo of PW1 by whatsapp;

(d) He asked D2 to film the assault;

(e) He told D2 to start filming once PW1 appeared;

(f) D2 sent him the “hit” message so he knew D2 was ready to film;

(g) D2 sent him the assault video which he then forwarded to Ah Man; and

(h) Ah Man did not pay and became out of reach.

Criminal records

16.  D1 has one previous conviction which is similar and which was recorded only 8 days prior to the current offence date.

17.  D2 has 8 previous convictions, one similar.

Antecedents

18.  D1 is aged 26 (25 at the time of the offence), educated to Secondary 3 level, a decoration worker.  D1 is single and living in public housing in Chai Wan.

19.  D2 is aged 29 (27 at the time of the offence), educated to the equivalent of Secondary 3 level, a transportation worker.  D2 was last discharged from prison in April 2023.  D2 is single, living in public housing in Tuen Mun.

Mitigation

D1

20.  Mr Alan Ng of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of D1.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

21.  D1 lives with his father who has separated from his wife.  D1 has a proper job.  He has been working in the Housing Department as a technician and decoration worker with a monthly income of $18,000.

22.  D1 came to know some bad peers.

23.  In an AOABH case, joint enterprise is not unusual, see Archbold HK 2026 para 20-247.  The maximum penalty is 3 years’ imprisonment.  There are no sentencing guidelines.

24.  D1 pleaded guilty.  This case is not the worst or the most serious of its kind; and it was a single punch.  D1 was unarmed.

25.  Mr Ng asked for a lenient sentence on behalf of D1.

26.  Mr Ng submitted on behalf of D1 two mitigation letters written in Chinese respectively by D1 and his elder first cousin.  The contents are generally that D1 is regretful for his serious mistake; that he committed the offence because of economic reason and his anxiety and quick-headedness; that he has deeply reflected upon the matter and learned a deep lesson; that he has reformed himself into a law-abiding person; that he promises not to re-offend; that he has suffered from depression as a result of losing his job and waiting for legal process.  The letter writers asked for a chance for reform and leniency in the sentence for D1.

D2

27.  Mr Mark Leung of counsel mitigated on behalf of D2.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

28.  D2 was born in Shenzhen, and moved to Hong Kong when he was around 4 years old.  D2 is still single, but living with his girlfriend and their son in a public housing flat.

29.  D2’s girlfriend is in court to give him support.

30.  Before starting work as transport assistant/ delivery worker at the age of 16, D2 had studied in various subjects at VTC.  During the time of the offence, he was employed as a delivery worker for a monthly income of about $16,000.  He is still working in the same capacity with a monthly income of about $25,000.

31.  D2 has been remanded in custody for about 42 days before he obtained bail.

32.  D2 committed the offence because of money.  He now regrets deeply.

33.  Mr Leung highlighted the following mitigating factors:

(a) D2 confessed to the police and he pleaded guilty timely;

(b) His signs of remorse appeared early as he helped pick up the victim’s fallen items; and

(c) He has not committed any offence since and is supporting his family by working diligently.

34.  Mr Leung further submitted that:

(a) D2 was not the mastermind;

(b) He had not assaulted the victim;

(c) He helped pick up the victim’s fallen items even after police arrived;

(d) No weapon was used; and

(e) Victim did not suffer permanent harm.

35.  Since the offence, D2’s girlfriend has given birth to their son (now about 9 months old). D2 plans to marry her after serving his sentence.  She has developed mental issues when she was pregnant.  D2 has been hard working to make ends meet as the sole breadwinner of the family.  If D2 is imprisoned, the already vulnerable family would lose its crucial support.

36.  D2 has got back on the right track after the offence without committing further wrongdoings.  It was submitted that D2 has learnt a tough lesson and that his chance of reoffending is not high despite his past records.

37.  There is no sentencing guideline for the offence.

38.  Mr Leung cited a magistracy appeal case HKSAR v Law Wai Tung, HCMA 1182/2005, for reference.

39.  Mr Leung asked for a lenient sentence on behalf of D2.  Mr Leung even went so far as asking for a suspended sentence for D2 in light of his genuine remorse and family situation.

40.  Mr Leung submitted on behalf of D2 three mitigation letters written in Chinese respectively by D2 himself, his girlfriend and his mother.  The contents are generally that D2 has deeply reflected upon his mistakes; that D2 promises the court that he will change his ways and will not re-offend; that D2 is the sole economic pillar of the family and the sole emotional support of his girlfriend.  The letter writers asked for lenient sentence for D2.  The girlfriend and mother also asked for a non-custodial sentence so that D2 may take care of the family.

Sentence

41.  There was one similar previous conviction for each of the defendants.  I won’t hold that against them.

42.  The seriousness of this case lies in the contract nature of the assault which must be discouraged by a deterrent sentence.

43.  Although the injuries were not serious, there were aggravating factors such as the assault was videoed and it took place in a public place and the fact that two offenders acted in concert.

44.  As a result, imprisonment is the only sentencing option; and I take 12 months’ imprisonment as a starting point for each defendant.

45.  Between D1 and D2, D1 was the mastermind and it was he who got D2 into trouble, by recruiting D2.  For his leading role, I will add 3 months to D1’s starting point.

46.  I do not accept D2 showed signs of remorse when he helped pick up the victim’s fallen items.  He was simply trying to make his picking up of D1’s cap less odd before quietly walking away from the scene.

47.  D1 and D2 each pleaded guilty in good time earning for themselves the customary 1/3 sentencing discount.  There are no other mitigating factors of weight to warrant another sentence reduction.  I should add that although D2’s current family circumstances are difficult, they were brought about by D2 who knew that he was going to be punished for this case with likely imprisonment.

(D1 and D2, please stand)

48.  On Charge 1, the sentence for D1 is 10 months’ imprisonment; and the sentence for D2 is 8 months’ imprisonment.