COURT: Fayzan Ali was a man who had his own problems, both with the law and his addiction, but he didn’t deserve to die in the way he did. Alex may have actually killed him, but by their verdicts, the jury decided that each of you had a greater or lesser role to play in what happened to him.
Harwinder Singh and Gurjinder Singh, you may sit down for the moment.
You, Gurpreet Singh, have been convicted of Fayzan Ali’s murder. The law recognises only one punishment for the crime of murder. Accordingly, the sentence I pass on you is one of imprisonment for life. When you will be released
will depend on the view taken of your case by the Long-term Prison Sentences Review Board. He can be taken away.
Harwinder Singh and Gurjinder Singh, would you stand up, please. I don’t propose to keep the two of you in suspense. You are each going to prison for 8 years. When I’ve left court, your lawyers will explain to you when you are likely to be released, bearing in mind the rules we have about remission of sentence and how long you have been in custody awaiting trial. You may sit down while I explain my reasons.
Neither of these two defendants were responsible for the fatal wounds from which Ali died. That was down to Alex alone, because it was he who had the knife which was used to kill Ali. Nor were either of them involved in that phase of the attack on Ali in which Alex chopped and cut him to death. Harwinder Singh had not been present during any of the phases of the attack on Ali. And although Gurjinder Singh had been involved in both the first encounter with Ali to the east of Nathan Road and the first phase of the attack on Ali caught on CCTV, neither of them were present during the second phase of the attack on Ali, during which Alex used the knife to kill him.
Having said that, by their verdicts the jury were sure that Ali was attacked either as a result of a plan to attack him, or at least an understanding that each of these two defendants would join in if their friends wanted someone attacked. As it is, I am sure that there had been a pre-arranged plan to attack him. It was hardly chance that those who had been involved in the attack all came to the vicinity of the guesthouse in Jordan where Ali was likely to be. Harwinder Singh came with Alex, and Gurjinder Singh came in a car which he drove with a number of people who have not yet been apprehended. The important point is that this was not a spontaneous eruption of violence: Ali died as a result of a planned attack on him.
By their verdicts, the jury were also sure that each of these two defendants had played some part in putting that plan into effect. The part Harwinder Singh played was to take Alex to Jordan on his scooter, and to enable him to make a quick getaway from the scene of the attack should that prove to be necessary.
The part Gurjinder Singh played was to drive some of the men who were to take part in the attack on Ali to where he was likely to be, as Gurjinder Singh was someone who had a valid driving licence.
But in Gurjinder Singh’s case, it wasn’t just that. He took part in the attack on Ali himself. Although he was minimising his role when he was interviewed by the police, he admitted to them that he’d tried to trip Ali up by throwing the cricket bat he’d been carrying at Ali’s legs to stop him getting away. He told the police that he’d been carrying the bat only because someone had given it to him to frighten someone with. But I am sure that he had it with him because he was intending to use it on Ali himself, and would have done so had he not thrown it at Ali’s legs previously. It was Gurjinder Singh who led the chase when Ali was running away, and it was he who caught Ali first. The CCTV footage shows that when he caught Ali, he began hitting him and perhaps punching him.
Finally, by their verdicts, the jury were sure that each of these two defendants were aware that there was a real possibility that someone might use a deadly weapon on Ali, even though the pre-arranged plan had not been to cause Ali really serious injury, but just to cause him some harm. It is the nature of the plan which affords these two defendants the best mitigation for what they did. I can only sentence them on the basis that the plan they signed up to did not involve causing Ali really serious injury, let alone killing him.
By their verdicts, the jury were also sure that by walking away from where the first phase of the attack took place and not following Ali to where the second phase of the attack took place, Gurjinder Singh was not withdrawing from the plan he had signed up to. Indeed, once what happened to Ali is seen as a pre-planned attack on him, there was little or no scope for it to be said on Gurjinder Singh’s behalf that by walking away from where the first phase of the attack took place and not following Ali to where the second phase of the attack took place, he was disassociating himself from what was being done to Ali, so that he should not be saddled with responsibility for what happened to Ali after he left. The jury must have been sure that this was not a case of Gurjinder Singh walking off simply because he wanted to let the others know that they could no longer count on his support.
I take into account that neither of these two defendants had previous convictions, but that counts for little in a case such as this. I heard in the course of the trial of Harwinder Singh’s addiction to alcohol and his renal condition, but they do not justify discounting his sentence.
I have seen that Gurjinder Singh is a family man, and I know that some people speak highly of him. But I do not suppose they have seen the footage of what Gurjinder Singh did in the way I have. And of course, I have read the two defendants’ own moving letters and the regret, they say, they have for what they did.
Nor have I overlooked that Gurjinder Singh surrendered himself to the police, but I don’t think that that signified remorse on his part. Rather he knew that in due course the police would discover his involvement, and he decided to strike pre-emptively. What he said when he was interviewed showed that he was denying knowing anything about the plan to attack Ali, and he completely minimised his own part in it.
Neither of these defendants have the mitigation of pleas of guilty, and the possibility of Gurjinder Singh pleading guilty to manslaughter was only raised late in the day -after the prosecution has closed its case, indeed after the court had ruled that Gurjinder had a case to answer and had rejected the submission of no case to answer advanced on his behalf.
It was not followed by an actual plea of guilty to manslaughter. He did not even offer to plead guilty to manslaughter. The letter which his solicitor sent to the prosecution merely inquired whether the prosecution would be prepared to accept a plea of guilty to manslaughter, and the letter was couched in such terms as to make it clear that any offer to plead guilty would be conditional on the prosecution no longer proceeding with the charge of murder. The letter was no more than what the leading textbook on sentencing in Hong Kong has described as “an exploratory feeler” - in other words, Gurjinder’s legal team dipping their toes in the water to see what the temperature might be.
In the circumstances, and in particular in the absence of an actual offer to plead guilty to manslaughter - whether conditional or unconditional - there can be no discount for the prospect which that letter hinted at.
I should add that thought was given as to whether the jury should be told anything about any willingness on Gurjinder Singh’s part to accept that he was guilty of manslaughter, but the decision was made not to say anything about that.
Two final points. First, I have already said that the plan these two defendants signed up to was one in which Ali was to be caused some harm, but not really serious harm. But the law sometimes requires people to be punished for the unintended consequences of their actions. The more serious the consequences, the greater the punishment will be, however unintended those consequences may have been.
Secondly, although the defendants played very different roles in putting the plan into effect, I must look at their cases as a whole. Taking everything into account, I have concluded that they each deserve the same sentence. Putting it in another way, their shared criminality was to sign up to the plan that Ali was to be attacked, even though the roles they played were different.
Would the two of you stand up, please. I have had an opportunity to read the decided cases which your lawyers have provided me with. Those cases, they say, point to the sort of sentences which should be passed in this case. Those cases have helped me in the sentencing task I have to perform.
In all the circumstances of the case, the relevant circumstances being those which I have tried to summarise, I have concluded that the appropriate sentence in each of your cases for the manslaughter of Ali is one of 8 years’ imprisonment. That is the sentence which I pass on each of you. They may be taken away.