HKSAR v. NG HOW YEE (ALSO KNOWN AS NG HAU YI AND NG HAU YEE)

DCCC 785/2024

[2025] HKDC 207

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 785 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  Mr Ng pleaded guilty before me to one charge of Wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a)  of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212. Particulars are that he, on 14 February 2024, at the staircase, 1^st Floor, Kar Wong Building, Nos 639-645 Shanghai Street, Mong Kok, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully and maliciously wounded Tse Chi Fung with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

Facts admitted by Mr Ng

2.  Mr Ng and Ms Zeng (PW2)  were lovers and they cohabited in Room D, 3/F of Kar Wong Building (“the Flat”)  before they became separated in July 2023.  Mr Ng continued to keep the key to the Flat.

3.  Mr Tse (PW1)  became acquainted with PW2 in early February 2024 at a bar (“the Bar”)  where she was working.  On 13 February 2024, before midnight, PW1 and friends visited the Bar.

4.  At about 4 am on the next day, PW1 went back with PW2 to the Flat and they stayed the “night” in her bedroom.

5.  At about 7 am, PW1 exited PW2’s bedroom and found Mr Ng in the living room.  Mr Ng scolded PW1 and punched PW1 in the lower lip.

6.  PW1 fled.  Mr Ng gave chase.  When PW1 reached the 1/F staircase of the building, he was slit by Mr Ng in the back of his neck with a 31 cm chopper (inclusive of an 18 cm blade).  PW1 reported the case to the police.

7.  PW1 was admitted to hospital.  He was found to have suffered mild bruising and swelling at the lower lip and to have a 2.5 cm laceration wound at his neck.

8.  Mr Ng was intercepted by the police at the scene.  He directed the police to recover the chopper.  He told the police that he originally took the knife from the Flat’s kitchen.

9.  Police arrested Mr Ng.  Under caution, Mr Ng admitted he hit the back of PW1’s neck with the chopper.

10.  During a cautioned VRI conducted in the afternoon, Mr Ng said:

(a)  He became acquainted with PW2 in a nightclub in 2021 and they became lovers and cohabited in the Flat; he possessed the key to the Flat;

(b)  He witnessed PW1 and PW2 exited the bedroom together; and

(c)  He knew how the utensils were organized in the kitchen of the Flat.

Criminal record

11.  Mr Ng has 11 previous convictions the last of which was recorded in 1985 with none similar.

Antecedents

12.  Mr Ng is aged 69 (68 at the time of the offence), educated to primary school level.  He works as a taxi-driver and lives on his earnings.  He lives alone in Tsuen Wan.

Mitigation

13.  Mr Paul Kwong of solicitor advocate mitigated on behalf of Mr Ng.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

14.  Mr Ng was born in Hong Kong and is married with one grown-up son.  His wife has emigrated to the US a long time ago and so the couple have been living apart for some 25 years.  His son has also settled in the US.

15.  Mr Ng used to be a chef in a canteen which closed in 1999.  Since 2001, Mr Ng has been a full-time taxi driver earning a monthly income of about $30,000.

16.  On the day of the offence, Mr Ng on returning to the premises found a stranger PW1 exited from PW2’s bedroom with only his underwear on.  It was a devastating blow to Mr Ng.

17.  The initial reactionary assault on PW1 did not involve any weapon: it remained a verbal quarrel and a punch with Mr Ng’s fist causing PW1 to bleed.

18.  It was submitted that although the blade was lengthy, only a 2.4 cm laceration wound was caused to the neck of PW1.  It was submitted that Mr Ng did not use the major part of the blade to cause a deep cut wound to PW1.  It was submitted that Mr Ng had exercised considerable restraint not to have caused any deep cut wound.  There was no blood on the floor nor on PW1’s clothes.

19.  It was submitted that this was a crime of passion: there was no premeditation or planning.

20.  Mr Kwong asks the court to obtain a community service suitability report before sentencing.

21.  Mr Ng is willing to pay compensation to PW1 in the agreed amount of $20,000 and has in fact done so voluntarily in the open view of the court.  The mechanism by which this is achieved is by way of a solicitor’s cheque made payable to the victim PW1 through the intermediary of the police who undertakes to deliver the cheque to PW1 within 14 days.

22.  Mr Ng is on bail.  One of the conditions is to report daily to the Mong Kok Police Station.  This has caused substantial stress and financial loss to him.

23.  Mr Ng does not have a clear record but his last conviction was about 40 years ago.

24.  Mr Ng pleaded guilty in good time and is entitled to the full one-third sentencing discount.

25.  The court is urged to pass a lenient sentence on Mr Ng and it was submitted that a community service order would do justice in this case.

26.  Upon seeing a photograph of the victim’s back neck taken in July 2024, Mr Kwong submitted that the victim has fully recovered.

27.  Upon enquiry by the court, Mr Kwong submitted that Mr Ng chased after the victim whilst being armed with a knife in order to teach him a lesson.

Sentence

28.  Mr Ng is an old man but not very old.  Although his last conviction dated back some 40 years ago, the number of his previous convictions and the seriousness of some of the offences were quite substantial.  For these reasons, I cannot treat Mr Ng as a person of previous good character.

29.  Wounding with intent is a very serious offence carrying with it a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

30.  I have seen the pile of 20 photographs (kept in court file)  showing the crime scene, the weapon, and the position of the injury both before and after recovery.  The weapon was a standard chopper of the type usually found in domestic kitchens.  The position of the injury (an almost horizontal laceration)  was right at the back of the neck.

31.  The usual sentence after trial for this offence is 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment: HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [2013] 6 HKC 225.

32.  The Court of Appeal in paras 49-50 of Chan Chun Tat gave helpful guidance to a sentencing court when dealing with this sort of case:

“49. … many of the factors to which a court will have regard in determining the gravity of a s 17 offence and the culpability of the offender will relate to the type of harm intended to be inflicted, the means by which that harm was inflicted and the circumstances generally surrounding the assault. Thus, without attempting to exhaustively identi[f]y all the relevant factors, the usual ones will be the extent to which the assault was premeditated, the reasons or motivation underlying the assault upon the victim, the mental or emotional state of the assailant at the time of the assault, whether alcohol or drugs contributed to the actions of the assailant, whether the assault was committed by the assailant alone or as a part of a group, the type of weapons employed, the level of force or aggression and the persistence with which the assault was pressed home, the injuries caused to the victim and the effect of the assault upon the victim and those close to him or her.

50. In arriving at an appropriate sentence the court will have regard not just to the need to punish the offender for his conduct, but also to the sentencing principles of deterrence, both general and individual, and, in appropriate cases, the need to denounce the resort to violence. Of course deterrence and denunciation are always important when there is resort to violence but there may be particular situations that call for greater deterrence, such as in triad gang or contract attacks, or more denunciatory sentences, such as in domestic violence cases.”

33.  Because of the seriousness of the offence, the sentencing option suggested by Mr Kwong of a community service order is not a realistic one in most cases and will only be imposed where the most exceptional circumstances exist.

34.  With respect, the circumstances garnered by Mr Kwong do not come near to steering me away from passing a prison sentence, which is the normal sentence for such an offence, on Mr Ng.  In this respect, I note Mr Ng and PW2 were no longer in a relationship at the time of the offence.

35.  That said, I note that the injury was in the event not too severe; that there was no premeditation or pre-planning; and that the offence was a result of emotional outbursts followed by verbal and physical skirmishes.  However, I would have thought that the episode could have ended without the use of any weapons as the victim did not have any weapon himself and was already on a flight away from the premises.

36.  For the use of a sharp weapon against somebody at his back who was already fleeing from an earlier skirmish, Mr Ng has to pay a heavy price.  I note the knife landed on the victim’s neck area.  This could have been because Mr Ng was on an elevated platform as both were running down the staircase with Mr Ng chasing from behind.  However, this could not assist Mr Ng because he knew generally which area of the body he was aiming at when he wielded the knife.  The victim was simply lucky not to have suffered a more severe injury given the position where the knife landed.

37.  All things considered, in Mr Ng’s case, I adopt an initial starting point of 2 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.  Because of Mr Ng’s senior age, as an act of mercy, I take off one month.  That reduces the starting point to 2 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

38.  Mr Ng pleaded guilty in good time so he shall be given the customary 1/3 sentencing discount.  For his voluntary act of compensating the victim, I will deduct one additional month from the sentence after the 1/3 discount.  There are no other mitigating factors of weight to justify another sentence reduction.

(Mr Ng, please stand)

39.  The sentence is 21 months’ imprisonment.