CRIMINAL CASE NO. 418 OF 2010
COURT: The most striking characteristic about this case is the cowardly nature of the attack on two boys late at night as they walked a dog. It was carried out by the defendant now before me, Wong Yat-fung, who appears to have been supported by a gang of about 20 or even more.
Those boys who were attacked stood no chance whatsoever. One of them, Lee Kwong-pan, who was 15 years old at the time, is now left in a wheelchair and able to speak only simple words; unable even to complete a full sentence and, needless to say, dependent on others for his care. In other words, he has been robbed of any real hope of a normal life. The doctor, Dr Chow, who gave evidence this morning, could not altogether discount the possibility of a miracle, but it goes without saying, well over a year later, that the progress with this victim is obviously painfully slow.
The reason that the victim of the 1st count is in that state is that you hit him so hard with a long-handled, and no doubt heavy, torch that you gave him brain damage. Unlike a metal pipe, the torch was something which could be carried by you because of its innocent appearance without the risks attached to carrying an obvious weapon of offence.
Not satisfied with striking one boy over the head, you went on to strike the second victim, Yu Siu-wai, who was 17. He too was hit on the head, though fortunately for him with far less damage done. When you tried to hit him again, he managed to avoid the blow.
Now, these offences were committed on the Yat Tung Estate, which of course is in Tung Chung, and they were committed a few weeks before you were due to appear in the District Court for sentence on charges of wounding with intent and common assault. For those offences in the District Court, you received a total sentence of 3 years and 8 months’ imprisonment on 15 July 2010, following your pleas of guilty to those charges. In all probability, therefore, the sentencing judge will have taken a starting point overall of 5½ years’ imprisonment.
I have been provided with the full facts of that case. Suffice it to say that for the utterly trivial reason of a small argument between two women in a restaurant, you were called to the restaurant with three other men as a result of someone blowing the whistle. There, you surrounded the lady and her daughters, who had objected to being bumped into several times by another female, and when that lady’s husband arrived to go to his wife’s rescue, this was the cue to beat him up. He was assaulted and he was punched by the four men, including yourself, and he ended up on the floor of the restaurant.
Later that day, the victim of that common assault recognised you on the Yat Tung Estate as one of the four men who had beaten him up earlier, and he made a telephone call to the police. He was with his brother at the time. While they continued to watch you, you noticed them. You walked away, but very soon you were back in a vehicle with two or three other men, armed with objects resembling water pipes.
The victim of the assault in the restaurant was able to get away, but his brother was not so lucky. He was caught by three of the men, including you, and repeatedly hit over the head and body with water pipes to the extent that he lost all consciousness. The medical report indicated acute subdural haemorrhage, fractured right orbit, which is the cavity around the eyeball, a fractured bone elsewhere, nasal obstruction, and materially reduced visual clarity.
It is apparent that you have an extremely violent disposition.
Going back to the facts of the present case, you also seem to think that you can act the part of a gang leader when you are surrounded by a host of juvenile followers. Like most bullies, you are an utter coward, and you picked on two unarmed boys who had not the slightest chance against so many, and what makes this case additionally serious is that you were on bail for other charges of a similar kind.
I doubt that you have spared any thought at all for the victim of the 1st count or for the victim’s family, which has been left, probably for the rest of his life, having to look after him.
As you were on bail for the previous serious offence of violence, it is quite apparent that you are unable to curb your violent disposition. Indeed, I note that there was an even earlier assault in 2005 occasioning actual bodily harm.
I am going to take a starting point of 14 years’ imprisonment on the 1st count of wounding with intent. On the 2nd count, there will be a starting point of 30 months, 2½ years, for wounding.
You have pleaded guilty from the outset, and you will receive the full benefit of that.
The sentence on Count 1 will be 9 years and 4 months. The sentence on the 2nd count will be 20 months.
I have considered totality, but these were senseless, motiveless attacks on two unarmed people, one of whom will probably never walk again. The sentences will be consecutive, so that your sentence for this will be a total of 11 years’ imprisonment.
As these offences were committed whilst you were on bail for other offences of violence very similar to this, but not as serious, I am going to order that the present sentence will run consecutively to the sentence of 3 years and 8 months you are presently serving.