HKSAR v. YUK KIN MAN

DCCC1068/2008

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1068 OF 2008

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  The defendant, Yuk Kin-man, appeared before me and pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent.

2.  The defendant admitted that between the 13th day of March 2008 and 15th day of March 2008, in Hong Kong, he conspired with Bui Van-thanh and Tran Trong-manh and a person known as Fei Lok, to unlawfully and maliciously cause grievous bodily harm to Ma Chiu-sing, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm.

3.  At about 9.20 am on 15 March 2008, the victim in this case, Mr Ma Chiu-sing, was discharged from the Stanley Prison.  While walking on the Stanley Village Road heading towards a bus stop, Ma felt someone approaching him from behind.  Ma turned around and saw Vietnamese male Bui Van-thanh striking him with a two-feet-long wooden pole.  Ma swirled aside but the strike fell on his right knee.  Ma struggled with Bui and managed to subdue Bui eventually.  Bui was arrested by a patrolling police officer.

4.  Vietnamese male Tran Trong-manh was arrested on 16 March 2008.

5.  Bui and Tran were jointly charged with conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Persons Ordinance in DCCC339/2008.  They pleaded guilty to the charge on 23 May 2008.  Each of them was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment.

6.  Further police investigation led to the arrest of the defendant on 13 October 2008.

7.  In the video-recorded interview, under caution, the defendant admitted the following:

(a)  The defendant was instructed by his godfather to beat up Ma.  He was given a reward of HK$12,000.

(b)  On the night of 14 March 2008, the defendant met up with a male nicknamed Fei Lok at a disco in Hanoi Road in Tsim Sha Tsui to discuss the attack.  The defendant promised Fei Lok a reward of HK$10,000.  Fei Lok introduced an agent nicknamed Vietnamese Man, i.e., Tran, to the defendant.  The advantage of having stranger Vietnamese attackers was to keep the defendant out of trouble in case anything untoward happened.

(c)  Later that night, Vietnamese Man and another Vietnamese male (Bui) arrived at the disco.  The four them then discussed the attack.

(d)  In the early morning of 15 March 2008, the defendant drove the Vietnamese attacker (Bui) to the outside of the Stanley Prison.  There they monitored the discharge of Ma from the prison.

(e)  The defendant knew Ma as he had met Ma in Stanley Prison.  After Ma came out of the prison, the defendant identified Ma to the Vietnamese attacker, who then attacked Ma with a wooden pole.  The wooden pole was brought by the Vietnamese attacker.

(f)  The attack was foiled and the Vietnamese attacker was arrested by the police.  The defendant then fled.

(g)  On 16 March 2008, the defendant transferred HK$10,000 to an account provided by Fei Lok through ATM.

8.  Ma suffered tenderness on left forearm and right knee, swelling on left forearm and abrasion on right knee.

9.  The defendant does not have a clear record.  In 2004 the defendant was convicted of a count of trafficking in DD and he received 6½ years’ imprisonment.

10.  The antecedent statement of the defendant shows that he is now aged 33, born in Hong Kong, and he was living with his third eldest sister before his arrest.  He received education up to Form 1.  In the past he had worked as an electrical worker and a delivery worker.

11.  Mr Marray in mitigation told me concerning the health condition of the defendant.  After the defendant was remanded since his arrest in the beginning of December 2008 he was transferred to Siu Lam at the request of the Correctional Services Department.  He remained at Siu Lam since that date.  He is now on medication.  Mr Marray told me it is not known exactly what is wrong with the defendant, the fact remains he is receiving medicine every day and he had been admitted to hospital and remained there for a few days.

12.  Concerning the employment history of the defendant, Mr Marray told me since the defendant’s last discharge from prison at the end of December 2007 he helped in the family’s estate agency in Guangzhou, China.  The defendant’s father worked as a hawker selling fruit in the street.  When the defendant was small he had to help his father in the hawking business.

13.  Mr Marray submitted that the key  mitigation in this case is the guilty plea of the defendant and the evidence against the defendant rests entirely on the defendant’s cautioned interview.  After the defendant’s arrest he gave a full account to the police officers of what had happened and what his role was in this case.  Although the defendant was promised HK$12,000 as a reward, $10,000 of which was transferred to Fei Lok, the actual gain on the part of the defendant was only $2,000.  Mr Marray submits the role of the defendant was set out in paragraph 5 of the Summary of Facts. 

14.  It is fortunate that the injuries sustained by Ma were relatively minor in nature.  The victim sustained tenderness on the left forearm and right knee, swelling on the left forearm and abrasion on the right knee.

15.  Mr Marray urged me to take into consideration the co-operation of the defendant, his guilty plea, and the fact that the two Vietnamese attackers were sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment on their plea.  Mr Marray suggested that should be the appropriate sentence for the defendant in this case as well.

16.  I have considered the facts of this case, the background of the defendant, and all the matters urged on the defendant’s behalf by Mr Marray.  In my view, the attack on the victim was pre-meditated and well-planned.  Although the defendant was asked by his godfather to beat up the victim, instead of carrying out the attack on the victim, he had found another person, i.e., Fei Lok, who introduced the Vietnamese agents to the defendant.  The facts show that the advantage of having a stranger Vietnamese attacker had been considered by the defendant for his own benefit.

17.  The attack on Ma, in my view, was a blatant defiance of the law.  The offence took place on the very day Ma was discharged from prison.  The defendant and his co-conspirators monitored Ma’s discharge from Stanley Prison.  Obviously the defendant played the role of an organiser in this case.  He also identified the victim to the attacker.

18.  I have considered all the matters urged on the defendant’s behalf by Mr Marray, including the fact that the defendant had only received $2,000 as his gain.  I am also aware that the victim sustained relatively minor injuries.  The fact that the victim suffered only minor injuries in this case was due to the alertness on the part of the victim and his bravery in putting up a struggle against the attacker who was armed with a wooden pole.

19.  I am aware that Bui and Tran received 24 months’ imprisonment on their plea.  It seems that a 3 year starting point was adopted in their case.

20.  In the present case, bearing in mind the role played by the defendant, it seems to me that a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment is also appropriate.  I take 3 years’ imprisonment as the starting point.  Although the defendant does not have the benefit of a clear record, given his guilty plea and his co-operation with the police, I will allow the defendant the full one-third discount. 

21.  I am aware that the defendant is now at Siu Lam.  I am satisfied that the defendant will receive all proper and appropriate treatment there.  The fact that the defendant is now at Siu Lam is not a factor that would enable me to further reduce the sentence of 2 years.

22.  For the reasons given, I sentence the defendant to 2 years’ imprisonment.