HKSAR v. CHEN PENG

HCCC 115/2016

[2018] HKCFI 1636

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 115 OF 2016

-----------------

------------------

-----------------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

-----------------------------------------

COURT:

The defendant has been convicted of manslaughter by reason of provocation by a jury, and indeed, it was his plea from the very beginning of the trial. The provocation was not substantial, however, the jury found it was sufficient given the circumstances that night, pertaining to the defendant to make the killing one of manslaughter.

It is not usual for a court to order a background report in some of these cases, but I did so because having seen the five hours of interview that the defendant underwent while he was at hospital, I wanted to know a little more about the defendant’s background and the background report has enabled me to understand the background of the defendant and the road he took which led him to these unfortunate and tragic events.

It is without a doubt that the defendant has had a very poor background in growing up, and did not have as many opportunities as many people of his generation, but yet he did manage to come to Hong Kong and did manage to find work and also look after his mother who has been disabled by a work injury. By all accounts, from the background report, the defendant is a good person, well-liked, quiet and therefore this present offence is totally out of character, it would appear.

The defendant is, according to the report, a very filial son, and to the extent that the estranged stepfather wishes to offer his emotional support to him. So with that background, I have to determine a suitable sentence. Whilst recognising the defendant as having acted out of character, I also have to take into account the sad loss of life which is recognised by the defendant in his offering his apologies to the victim’s family.

As I have said, the provocation was not substantial, however, bearing in mind that the jury found that it was sufficient to cause the defendant to act in the way that he did, I therefore consider that an appropriate sentence will be one of 12 years’ imprisonment. However, taking into account the fact that the defendant had always maintained from the beginning of the trial his plea of manslaughter, thus narrowing the issues at trial and his full confession to the police from the time of his arrest and his full remorse, I am prepared to give him a one-third discount from that.

So he will be sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment, and hopefully the defendant will be able to use this time to perhaps study or learn a trade so that when he comes out, he can then be a useful member of society.