HKSAR v. LEE WAI MAN

HCCC 432/2017

[2019] HKCFI 1377

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 432 OF 2017

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:

Defendant, you are charged with a charge of murder, contrary to common law and punishable under section 2 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Chapter 212. You had pleaded not guilty to the charge but guilty to the lesser offence of manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility. The jury, by its verdict, has rejected your reliance on the defence of diminished responsibility.

The evidence shows that on the late evening of 8 December and early morning of 9 December, you had been drinking and were making a nuisance of yourself by interjecting into a private conversation with the deceased whilst the deceased was chatting with his son. Despite the deceased repeatedly telling you not to interrupt or cut into their conversation, you continued to try to do so. He was talking with his son about very personal, private matters such as his son’s future wedding plans.

You and the deceased and his son were strangers to each other. Despite you being strangers to each other, you had some behavioural issues and became somewhat aggressive towards them. You initiated a physical attack on the deceased, first of all, and you were restrained by a third party. Despite the deceased was drinking with his friend, you later again tried to interject. I would say in common English terms, you tried to muscle yourself into the conversation by saying that you were a triad member, reciting triad poems and so forth. Something happened and as a result, you fought with the deceased, and the deceased, with the assistance of his friend, struck you to the ground.

Clearly, you then planned and premeditated an attack on the deceased. This offence is aggravated by the fact that despite the brief confrontation that you had with the deceased, you went and took a knife to come back and, in my view, tried -- then you had already planned to hurt the deceased. You clearly intended to hurt him as you had concealed your identity by completely changing your clothes, including your shoes, and wore a mask and a hood over your head.

The slight confrontation you had with the deceased was minimal compared to what you then did to him. This matter could have been resolved by you just going to bed, going home, and going to bed. As it can be seen from the CCTV footage, you went in twice and out and changed your clothes twice.

Your reaction to the very slight, slight confrontation you had with the deceased was wholly out of proportion to what you did to him. As it can be seen by the evidence of the son, he was in fact very concerned for the safety of his father as you seemed to be fierce, your behaviour was fierce that evening.

Tragically, this son who was there has lost his father, seemingly before his wedding. He, as you have heard, deeply regrets, though it is not his fault, that he did not stay with his father till the end that evening. This was a tragic case of which the deceased died upon your revenge attack on him. You murdered, you killed the deceased only approximately some three hours after you met him.

Defendant, you have been convicted by the jury of murder. In law, there is only one sentence I can pass for an adult person convicted of murder. It is a mandatory sentence. That means I am bound by law to impose that sentence. Defendant, you are sentenced to life imprisonment.