HKSAR v. NGUYEN MANH CUONG

HCCC 268/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 268 OF 2016

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT:

The defendant has been convicted by a jury of manslaughter by reason of provocation. I had been told this morning that, in fact, on 21 July this year, that by letter to the Department of Justice, the defence did offer to plead guilty to manslaughter, but that was not accepted, and I can understand why it was refused at that time, because of the evidence that the Department of Justice had before going to trial.

There is no doubt in my mind that on this occasion, that the defendant is remorseful, and that he did act in the interest of his brother rather than for himself. He was genuinely worried about the fact that the deceased was leading his brother astray, after the deceased left prison, and getting his brother to smoke drugs at home.

And apart from the fact that the landlord had threatened to evict them should they be caught smoking drugs, I do accept that he was genuinely worried that the brother could not be holding down a job if he was taking drugs, so he was acting not out of his own self-interest, but in trying to protect his brother.

However, though the motivation be a good one, and garner sympathy, nevertheless a human life was taken.

The defendant and the deceased were of similar height, and the defendant was heavier than the deceased. Granted that the situation was chaotic, nevertheless, that it could have been better handled and the situation need not have developed to this stage.

However, I have to sentence the defendant according to the evidence that emerged in court, which the jury had accepted, and that was that the deceased was acting in a very provocative manner by challenging the defendant to a fight when the defendant admonished him for smoking drugs and leading his brother astray, and in the heat of the moment, the deceased was strangling the neck of the defendant and the knife was on the table, and there was a grab for the knife, and in that moment, the knife entered the deceased’s throat, and as the pathologist said, it was not a forceful entry because of the sharpness of the end of the knife, and once it broke through the skin it would have only taken a finger pressure for the knife to have entered and cut the main blood vessel or artery to the heart, which supplied blood to the heart, causing internal bleeding and ultimately resulting in the death of the deceased.

It is sad, it is a tragic offence and as Mr Chui correctly pointed out, there are no sentencing guidelines. Each case of this kind are different. The facts are different. The defendants are different. I can only express the hope that despite the long list of previous offences that the defendant has indulged in during his time in Hong Kong, that perhaps this period of incarceration for a longer time in prison would give him the time to reflect on his life and whether he would wish to continue in the way he has done previously. I hope that for the sake of his children that he has finally woken up.

I have considered the level of sentence, considering the facts of the case, and I have come to the conclusion that it would merit a 7 to 8 years term of imprisonment. I, of course, have to take into account the fact that he did offer to plead to manslaughter, and he should be given a reduction in view of that. And so I have determined that he should go to prison for 5 years.