COURT: The defendant pleaded not guilty to one count of murder and fought the case on the basis there was a lack of murderous intent as well as provocation. The jury unanimously returned a verdict of guilty of murder.
The deceased, Mr Lau Wing-hon, was 69 years old at the time. After about 3 am on 4 December 2021, the deceased was leaning against a railing outside 213 Nam Cheong Street, Sham Shui Po, when the defendant walked past. The defendant stopped, there was obviously words between the two men, and this led to the deceased rushing at the defendant but he was quickly punched to the ground. He was then kicked and stamped on until he became unconscious and motionless and after. This was all captured on CCTV footage.
But for two very civic minded civilians nearby, the defendant may not have been arrested and identified as the attacker. But for these two witnesses and the CCTV footage, the defendant may never have been apprehended, arrested and convicted. They should be commended for their actions.
When the defendant was arrested at the scene, his response under caution was that the deceased had sworn at him, using foul language so he kicked him. His initial response in the video-recorded interview conducted shortly after his arrest was that the deceased had sworn at him for singing to himself so he pushed the deceased. After he pushed the deceased, the deceased rushed at him, so he hit and kicked him. Later in the same interview, he then said the deceased hit him first. He was not suggesting he acted in self‑defence but was provoked by the words and acts of the deceased. However, the jury clearly did not believe that and the CCTV footage makes that explanation hard to believe.
The CCTV footage makes for gruesome viewing and it is hard to watch. The defendant punched the older, smaller, weaker man to the ground but did not stop there. He kicked and kicked with full force until the deceased stopped moving. Again, the defendant did not stop there. He then proceeded to stamp as hard as he could on the deceased’s chest and abdomen area many times. It was the first witness who saw the commotion and shouted at him to stop before he killed someone. It was the second witness who called the police twice and pointed out the defendant when the police arrived.
The deceased was taken to hospital with brain injury, multiple rib fractures, and injuries to his lungs, bowels, intestines, liver, and pancreas. He did not die immediately. But four months later, having spent the last four months of his life essentially immobile and needing mechanical ventilation to breath for almost the whole period. He had recurring bouts of pneumonia and ultimately suffered cardiac arrest twice before dying. His body gave out. He was 70 years old when he died. The cause of death was complications arising out of the injuries the defendant inflicted.
Mr Mughal and Ms Yu representing the defendant can say nothing on the defendant’s behalf by way of mitigation of any weight for my consideration.
The defendant is now 56 years old, single, and not a man with a clear record. He has 38 previous convictions obtained over 30 court appearances. He has many previous convictions that indicate he was a drug addict from as long ago as 1991. He has been sentenced to hospital orders on two occasions. He has been convicted of 12 offences involving violence ranging from assaulting police officers to wounding. The defendant is clearly a violent man.
The offence of murder is the most serious offence in our law for which a life sentence is prescribed. The defendant has intentionally taken away another person’s precious life. This was an utterly tragic, brutal, and senseless killing.
Accordingly, I sentence the defendant to life imprisonment for one count of murder.