The particulars of offence are that the 2 defendants on 29th day of May 2020, in Hong Kong, unlawfully killed Lian Lifen.
They are committed to this court for sentence.
Facts Admitted
Ms Lian Lifen (“the deceased”) was aged 55 and worked in a restaurant named Pacifica in Cheung Sha Wan.
On 24 May 2020, at around 10 am, she left home for work. And at 10.55 am, a colleague of the deceased in the restaurant noticed that she was injured at the back of her left ear. She went home for sick leave.
At 11.20 am on the same day, while at home, the deceased bled in the nose and spitted blood. Seeing this, the son made a report to the police thinking that she had been injured by an object fallen from height.
At the A&E Department of the Caritas Medical Centre, the son discovered that the gold necklace of the deceased valued at about $15,000 was missing.
Medical examination of the deceased revealed that there was bleeding and swelling over the occiput with a haematoma. CT scan showed brain stem and subarachnoid haemorrhage with fractured skull.
The deceased was certified dead on 29 May 2020. The cause of death as found on autopsy was head injuries with bronchopneumonia. The findings of scalp bruising, skull fracture, acute subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhage and cortical contusions with signs of brain herniation and secondary brainstem haemorrhage could also be fatal. The scalp bruising and skull fracture were compatible with injuries at site of impact while the cortical contusions at the bilateral frontal and temporal lobes were compatible with injuries opposite to the site of impact. The injuries were compatible with blunt force trauma onto the back of head, which could have been inflicted when the head bumped against a hard unyielding surface, such as during a fall. There was no sign of struggle or defensive injuries found.
There were findings of bronchopneumonia of both lungs, which is a common complication of severe head trauma caused as a result of immobilisation, aspiration of stomach contents, endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation.
As gleaned from the CCTV footages in the vicinity of the wholesale vegetable market and other nearby areas of 24 May 2020, the 2 defendants wandered around Ki Lung Street from 9.39 am. They walked apart but met up with each other twice, each for about 10 seconds. They then separated again.
The deceased left home at 10.02 am. And at 10.05 am, when she was walking along Ki Lung Street towards Kweilin Street, the 2 defendants walked in her direction. At 10.07 am, the deceased entered Dragon Centre, followed by the 1st defendant and then the 2nd defendant. The 2 defendants kept following the deceased, with the 2nd defendant behind the 1st defendant.
At about 10.18 am, the deceased walked past the fresh food wholesale market. And about 10 seconds later, the 1st defendant suddenly ran in the opposite direction and fled to the market. The 2nd defendant looked at the direction where the 1st defendant had run from and ran after the 1st defendant.
At about 10.22 am, the 2nd defendant caught up with the 1st defendant, and they walked to Dan Lai Street in the direction of Tung Chau Street.
At 10.29 am, the deceased crossed the pedestrian crossing at Fat Tseung Street. She put her hand on the traffic light pole there and then sat down for about two minutes before she walked to Yee Kuk Street arriving at Pacifica at 10.42 am.
The deceased left Pacifica at about 11.06 am and returned home at 11.19 am.
The 1st defendant entered the CF Jewellery at 11.14 am. He handed a necklace to a staff member there who gave him some cash. The 1st defendant left the jewellery shop at 11.22 am.
A staff member of the jewellery shop confirmed that at about 11 am on 24 May 2020, a male seemingly aged over 50 sold a necklace to their shop for $12,400. He identified the necklace when he was shown the photograph of the necklace of the deceased. The necklace can no longer be recovered.
The 2 defendants were arrested at the home of the 2nd defendant in Kwai Chung on 30 May 2020.
Under caution, the 1st defendant admitted snatching the necklace from the deceased while the 2nd defendant said that he had run away after he had seen “Ah Chiu” snatching the necklace from the deceased. He maintained that he had not taken part.
In the video-recorded interview subsequently conducted, the 1st defendant said that he had met up with the 2nd defendant to see if the 2nd defendant had money for ‘Ice’, the dangerous drug. He saw the deceased at the Dragon Centre and he snatched the necklace from the deceased with his hand. He did not pay attention if the 2nd defendant had followed him. As the deceased shouted, he fled to the fresh food wholesale market where he saw the 2nd defendant.
They took a taxi to Prince Edward Road. At around 11 am, he sold the necklace for $12,400 alone at Amoy Plaza. He used $10,000 to repay his dangerous drugs debts and gave $2,000 to the 2nd defendant. The rest of the money was spent on food. He did not use any weapon in the incident.
In the video-recorded interview subsequently conducted, the 2nd defendant said that after he had met up with the 1st defendant on that day, they went to Dragon Centre. The 1st defendant suddenly took an escalator to a mall. The 2nd defendant followed the 1st defendant and asked him what happened. The 1st defendant told the 2nd defendant that the deceased had money. He thought that the deceased owed the 1st defendant money, so they kept track of the deceased. He did not know that the deceased was a stranger to the 1st defendant.
When they walked to Lai Chi Kok Road, the 1st defendant dashed towards the deceased to snatch her necklace and then ran away into the fresh food wholesale market. The 2nd defendant did not want to get involved and he did not see how the 1st defendant snatched the necklace. He saw that the deceased was lying prone on the ground waving her arms. He was scared and followed the 1st defendant into the market.
They took a taxi to Prince Edward. The 1st defendant went to melt the gold necklace in a jewellery shop and returned after about 15 minutes. They went to the 1st defendant’s home where the defendant gave him $2,000 because the 1st defendant owed him $3,000.
Criminal Records
The 1st defendant had 27 previous convictions. He was last sentenced to 8 years 6 months imprisonment for trafficking in a dangerous drug on 31 July 2014.
The 2nd defendant had 36 previous convictions. He was last sentenced to 8 years 4 months imprisonment on 10 July 2014 for trafficking in a dangerous drug.
Mitigation
The 1st defendant is aged 58, single and received primary school education. At the time of the offence, he was unemployed and was a drug addict.
Counsel for the 1st defendant, Mr Arthur, points out that the defendant is remorseful for the death of the victim, which was a result of a cowardly attack on her in an unsophisticated robbery. The 1st defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. The extent of violence used by the 1st defendant fell short of causing really serious bodily harm. He only snatched the necklace from the victim and he does not know how death was caused. The 1st defendant considers that the victim might have fallen down as a result of the snatching. Mr Arthur asks the court to be lenient to the 1st defendant.
The 2nd defendant is aged 59, single and received primary school education.
Counsel for the 2nd defendant, Mr Chan, points out that the 2nd defendant did not play a leading role in the offence and he did not even have physical contact with the deceased. No weapon was used in the robbery, and the 2 defendants did not target old and vulnerable victims. The 2nd defendant did not abscond after the offence and was fully cooperative with the police after being arrested. The 2nd defendant is extremely remorseful for what he had done, thus pleading guilty to the offence. The robbery was not pre-planned and the 2nd defendant did not contemplate violence to be used. He had been under tremendous psychological burden since 2020 because of this incident. The chance of the 2nd defendant re-offending is minimal. Mr Chan asks the court to be lenient to the 2nd defendant.
Sentence
The sentences in the cases of manslaughter can vary considerably because the circumstances in which the offence is committed can have substantial differences.
A study of the previous cases shows that the sentences range from a probation order to imprisonment terms of more than 10 or even 20 years. The court must therefore determine the just and appropriate sentence to be imposed having regard to the whole circumstances under which the offence is committed as well as the background and mitigation of the defendant.
As rightly and justly pointed out by Mr Arthur, it was a cowardly attack on the deceased in an unsophisticated robbery. The court accepts that the robbery was not pre-planned in the sense that the 2 defendants did not have in mind a specific target for the robbery and had not worked out how the robbery was to be carried out. It is, however, of no doubt that the 2 defendants had gone out on that day in contemplation of committing a robbery on any victim whom they might find to be a suitable target.
Madam Lian probably had fallen victim of the 2 defendants because of the gold necklace she was wearing. It is not known how the head injuries of Madam Lian were caused. No doubt they must have been caused either by the 2 defendants or any one of them hitting her on the head with a hard object or by the force of snatching the necklace from her, resulting in her head hitting on a hard surface. As there is no evidence of what happened at the time of the robbery, the court gives the benefit of doubt to the 2 defendants and sentences them on the basis of the second scenario.
Due to the greed of the 2 defendants, Madam Lian died an unsolicited death. The 2 defendants had not only taken away a life but had also broken up a family, causing much griefs and grievances to the family members of the deceased. Although Mr Chan tells the court that the 2nd defendant played a non-leading role, the court is of the view that the 2 defendants had a mutual understanding and agreement to carry out the robbery. They might have played different roles, their culpability are the same.
Having considered the whole circumstances of the case and the mitigations of the 2 defendants, the court adopts a starting point of 15 years imprisonment for each one of them. Giving them the credit of pleading guilty, the court sentences each one of them to 10 years imprisonment.