HKSAR v. CHEUNG LAP YIN

DCCC 1133/2017

[2018] HKDC 588

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1133 OF 2017

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of conspiracy to wound with intent to do grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 17 (a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance[1] and section 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance (charge 2)[2].

2.  Full particulars of the offence are set out in the facts admitted by the defendant on 2 May 2018. 

3.  In summary at around 1:30 a.m. on 21 October last year Cheung Yik Yeung and Lee Yeuk Yin were smoking outside Bar Pacific on Tseng Choi Street, Tuen Mun, when four masked males carrying machetes alighted from a light goods vehicle. 

4.  When Mr Lee asked what was going on one of the four masked males scolded Mr Lee in vulgar language.  Mr Cheung and Mr Lee feeling alarmed ran away.  Mr Lee ran in the direction of Tsing To Path where he noticed one of the four males chasing him.

5.  PC 16710 who witnessed what happened informed the beat radio.  PC 22155 rushed to the scene and on arriving at Tsing To Path saw the defendant and another male, both carrying machetes, running away.  CCTV footage captured the defendant and the other person running along Tseng Choi Street.

6.  PC 22155, together with other police officers, ran in the opposite direction round Tsing To Path in order to intercept the defendant and the other male.  When PC 22155 saw the defendant again he demanded the defendant to stop.  After being chased the defendant surrendered and was arrested by PC 22155[3].  PC 16710 found two machetes nearby. 

7.  Under caution the defendant admitted, inter alia, that together with friends he alighted from a light goods vehicle to find “someone”; he was given a machete to chop “someone” and that on hearing a police officer shout stop he dropped the machete and tried to run away. 

8.  I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendant by Mr Lai, including the young age of the defendant, 19.  At the time of the offence the defendant had just turned 19 two days earlier.   

9.  In HKSAR v Hau Ping Chuen the Court of Appeal referred to the usual range of sentence for wounding with intent being 3-12 years[4].

10.  Section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Chapter 221 provides no court shall sentence a person of or over 16 and under 21 years of age to imprisonment unless the court is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with such person is appropriate.  Whilst this provision does not apply to wounding with intent, which is an excepted offence, a court must exercise great care before committing a young offender to prison. 

11.  In January this year the defendant was sentenced to detention in a Detention Centre for three offences of blackmail[5]. The defendant is presently still serving that sentence.  In the circumstances I therefore called for a Training Centre suitability report to provide me with further information about the defendant. 

12.  The report reveals that the defendant had no interest in studying and instead associated with undesirable peers.  In early 2012 the defendant joined the Sun Yee On triad society with “Chi Wai” as his big brother.  Under the influence of his triad peers the defendant committed the three offences of blackmail for which he was sentenced to undergo training in a Detention Centre.

13.  While undergoing training in the Detention Centre the defendant has managed to behave himself and incurred no disciplinary report.  The defendant’s supervising officer Mr Cheung comments that the defendant has shown a sense of remorse and is determined to turn a new leaf. 

14.  The assessment officer finds the defendant polite and cooperative in attitude.  The defendant admitted his culpability which he attributed to his weak self-restraint and undesirable association.  The defendant said he deeply regretted his misdeeds and promised to stay away from his adverse peers and find a stable job.

15.  The assessment officer is of the opinion that a further period of disciplinary training coupled with statutory supervision might be beneficial to the defendant in order to help him develop more insight into his problems and strengthen his law-abiding concept. 

16.  Mr Lai tells the court that while serving detention in the Detention Centre the defendant has reflected deeply and wishes to cut off his association with triad elements.  The defendant asks to receive further training in the Training Centre.

17.  Taking into account the defendant is only 19 and having carefully considered his character and conduct and the circumstances of the offence including that no actual injury was caused to anybody; and that the defendant appears to have benefited from the training in the Detention Centre, I am satisfied that it would be in the interest of the defendant and that of the community that he be allowed to continue his training by undergoing a period of training in a Training Centre[6].

18.  The defendant is sentenced to detention in a Training Centre.