HKSAR v. CHEUNG HING LOK

HCCC 176/2025

[2025] HKCFI 3570

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 176 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The Charge

1.  On 15 May 2025, the Defendant pleaded guilty in the magistracy to one count of manslaughter, contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 7 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212.  On the same day, he admitted a Summary of Facts dated 11 April 2025 and he was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentencing.  Today, before this Court, the Defendant confirmed his guilty plea to the manslaughter charge and his admission of the Summary of Facts.

Facts Admitted

2.  The facts of the case can be summarized as follows.

3.  Mr. LAU Hon-ping (“LAU”)  was acquainted with the Defendant’s father (Mr. CHEUNG Man, “CHEUNG”)  and his family, including the Defendant.  LAU often consumed alcohol together with his neighbours, including the late Mr. CHAN Kwan (“the Deceased”), outside the 7-11 Convenience Store situated in Tung Tau Estate (“the Store”).  CHEUNG joined the group occasionally, but his drunken behaviour often caused concerns to the others.

4.  On 12 September 2023, when LAU was drinking outside the Store, CHEUNG urinated on a nearby flowerbed.  This led to a dispute and a fight between them.  They were both arrested by the Police but were subsequently released. 

5.  At about 6:30 p.m. on 29 January 2024, when LAU was consuming alcohol with his friends (including the Deceased)  outside the Store, CHEUNG came out from the Store.  CHEUNG made a phone call and said to the other side, “He is here.  You guys come now!”

6.  Shortly after, the Defendant and two unknown males arrived at the scene and surrounded LAU.  The Defendant asked LAU if he was “Ah Ping” and CHEUNG told the Defendant that it was LAU who had assaulted him last time.  The Defendant then repeatedly accused LAU why he had assaulted his father and, at one stage, grabbed LAU’s shirt collar.  LAU told the Defendant that the matter was already over.

7.  At that stage, the Deceased was standing at the Defendant’s back on the right side.  The Deceased grabbed hold of the Defendant’s right elbow and asked him not to start a fight.  The Defendant turned around to face the Deceased and forcefully pushed the chest of the Deceased with both hands, which caused him to fall backward with the back of his head bumping against the ground.  As a result, the Deceased became motionless and white foams came out from his mouth and blood from his left ear and the back of his head.  When others present were checking the Deceased’s conditions, the Defendant still attempted to rush towards the Deceased.  They fended off the Defendant and questioned if he still wanted to continue.  The Defendant then fled the scene and did not call for medical assistance.

8.  The Deceased was immediately sent to Queen Elizabeth Hospital for medical treatment.  CT scan conducted on the Deceased’s brain showed brainstem haemorrhage.  The Deceased was certified dead at 1:45 a.m. on 31 January 2024.

9.  On 31 January 2024, the Defendant surrendered himself to the Police.  He was arrested for “manslaughter” and under caution he said, “It was my father who phoned me, and asked me to go down and accompany him to question ‘Ah Ping’ why he had assaulted my father last time and to understand the incident.”

10.  The Defendant admitted in the Summary of Facts that he had unlawfully killed the Deceased by pushing his chest outside the Store which caused the back of his head to bump against the ground.

Background and Mitigation

11.  The Defendant was born in Hong Kong on 16 August 1990.  He was aged 33 at the time of the offence and is now aged 34.  He has four sisters and a brother and he is single.  He was educated up to Form 4 in Hong Kong and has worked as a repairman, a delivery worker and at the time of the offence, he was a construction site worker.  He last resided with his parents and his eldest sister in a public housing estate. His father passed away on 31 December 2024 whilst the Defendant was in remand and as a result, he could not attend his father’s funeral.

12.  The Defendant has been brought before the courts on 5 previous occasions and convicted of, inter alia, two counts of possession of dangerous drugs, one count of taking conveyance without authority, one count of driving an unlicensed vehicle, one count of careless driving and other traffic related offences.  His last conviction was for robbery which was dated 5 September 2022, for which he received a sentence of 40 months’ imprisonment.

13.  His counsel, Mr. Wong Po-wing, informed the Court that since his arrest and remand in custody, the Defendant has felt deep remorse for the offence and he wishes to sincerely apologise to the family members of the Deceased for their bereavement.  The Defendant has written a letter to the Court himself in which he stated that he could feel the pain for the loss of a loved one when his father passed away at the end of last year.  The Defendant acknowledges his sole responsibility for the death of the Deceased and he is willing to accept any due punishment for the offence.  He also asks for forgiveness from the Deceased’s family members for their bereavement. 

14.  Mr. Wong has also submitted four other letters on the Defendant’s behalf, one from the Defendant’s mother and another from the Defendant’s siblings, and two other letters from the Defendant’s former employer.  They all pleaded for leniency for the Defendant and the former employer even indicated that he is willing to re-employ the Defendant upon his release from prison. 

Sentence

15.  The Prosecution submitted two authorities to assist the Court on sentencing: R v Lo Bing Sun, CACC 660/1993 (unreported and dated 23 May 1994)  and HKSAR v Tsang Siu Ching [2001] 1 HKLRD 522. 

16.  In Lo Bing Sun, the applicant had struck the deceased with a single blow on the mouth and that caused him to fall backward with his head coming into contact with the ground. As a result, the deceased eventually passed away.  The majority of the Court of Appeal refused to adopt the UK sentences in the region of 1 year to 2 years’ imprisonment and held: “But this city is a very crowded and tense environment and the unlawful and dangerous act constituted by a blow such as the one here must be deterred.  The huge variety of circumstances in which the offence of manslaughter is committed leaves sentencing very much at large.  We must be conscious of the fact that a human being has lost his life…”  In that case, the majority did not find the sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment to be either manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.  That was a case in which the applicant pleaded not guilty.

17.  In Tsang Siu Ching, which was another case of unintentional killing, the applicant had tried to break up a fight between the deceased and a female and in the course of that, he grabbed the deceased tightly around the neck and threw him backward towards a cabinet; there was then further fighting between the two during which the deceased was bumped against the wall and started to bleed.  The deceased fell to the floor, became motionless and he was left there by the applicant.  The applicant pleaded guilty to the manslaughter charge in that case.  The Court of Appeal held that although the killing was unintentional, more than one blow had been involved and the fact that the applicant made no attempt to call for medical assistance was an aggravating factor.  The Court of Appeal did not find the sentence of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment to be manifestly excessive; indeed, the Court stated that it could be argued that the sentence could have been slightly higher.   

18.  The present case involved a tragic incident involving the death of the Deceased.  It is clear that the Defendant never intended to cause the Deceased’s death or any serious bodily harm to the Deceased.  It was a case of a “one unfortunate blow” which had very terrible consequences. 

19.  On the other hand, together with two unknown males, the Defendant had looked for LAU and accused him of having assaulted his father on a previous occasion.  He even grabbed LAU’s shirt collar and because of that, the Deceased sought to intervene and asked the Defendant not to start a fight.  After the Deceased had fallen onto the ground and become motionless, the Defendant fled the scene and did not call for medical assistance.  The Court also notes that the Defendant has a number of previous convictions, including one count of robbery which is an offence of violence.   Afterall, the manslaughter offence brought about the unfortunate death of an innocent person and the sentence to be imposed should have a deterrent effect.

20.  Having carefully considered all the helpful mitigation submissions made by Mr. Wong on behalf of the Defendant, both orally at the hearing today and on papers, I would use a starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment for the manslaughter offence in the present case.  By virtue of the Defendant’s guilty plea and other circumstances as set out on papers, I will discount the starting point by some 38%, reducing it to 30 months’ imprisonment.  Given the seriousness of the offence, I do not see any other mitigating factor that is applicable to the present case.  The Defendant is thus sentenced to a term of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

Exhibits

21.  Order in terms of the Prosecution’s application, not objected to by the Defence, was granted.