HKSAR v. WONG WAI LUN

DCCC 776/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 776 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to four charges of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212. The offences were all committed at the Comet Lounge Karaoke, which is on ground floor of Hing Lung Main Street in Cheung Chau, at about midnight on the 4th and into 5 June 2013. The defendant originally faced six similar charges; two charges are now left on the court file after pleas of not guilty.

2.  The admitted facts show that at around 9.30 pm on 4 June 2013, the four victims and some friends went to the Comet Lounge to celebrate PW1’s birthday.  There were nine people altogether.  At around midnight, three males were seen, one of whom was the defendant, another of whom was a male called Chan Lek-sun, and there is another unknown male. 

3.  They were seen at the back door of the karaoke lounge.  They were seen to put on surgical masks and balaclavas, they were each seen to be holding a beef knife.  Then the defendant, Chan Lek-sun, and the unknown male rushed into the karaoke lounge and attacked PW1 and others. 

4.  Shortly after the defendant, Chan Lek-sun, and the unknown male had entered the karaoke lounge, another four to six unknown males, who are holding either metal pipes or beef knives, dashed into the karaoke lounge and started attacking PW1 and others.

5.  During the attack, PW1 was struck by an unknown male.  PW2 was attacked by an unknown male who swung a knife at him.  PW2 raised his left hand to ward off the knife.  He was chopped two to three times.  PW5 and PW6 saw Chan Lek-sun and the defendant attacked their friend.  PW5 eventually subdued Chan Lek‑sun, and PW6 pulled off the defendant’s balaclava and tried to take the knife held by the defendant, but failed. 

6.  Chan Lek-sun, whilst being subdued, managed to slash PW5 and PW6 with his knife.  The defendant and Chan Lek-sun were assisted to flee by other people.  PW6 set on a pursuit but was hit on the head with a metal pipe.

7.  A report was made to police.  The victims were sent to hospital.  Chan Lek-sun had sustained injuries, he was also sent to the hospital where he was identified by four of the victims and friends.  The defendant’s DNA was found on the bloodstains on the wrappings of the handle of the beef knife seized from the Comet Lounge Karaoke.  Five witnesses in the karaoke lounge identified the defendant as one of the attackers. 

8.  As the result of the attack, PW1 sustained a 6 centimetre cut over the forehead and also lacerations partially extended to the skull bone and lacerations on the right arm. She received 13 stitches to her forehead and she was discharged on the same day. 

9.  PW2 sustained cut wounds to the left arm and knee, with underlying injury over the left elbow and exterior tendon.  There was also injury of her left-ring-finger.  Repair and suturing were performed.  He was discharged on 8 June 2013. 

10.  PW5 had lacerations and received seven stitches. 

11.  PW6 had lacerations on the hand, and right arm he received 14 stitches. 

12.  The victims’ recovery from injury has been completed unremarkable.

13.  The defendant is aged 30 years old.  He has appeared in court in the year 2002 when he clearly must have been a juvenile.  He was firstly sentenced to Detention Centre for four offences of theft, that was in March 2002.  And then later in May of 2002 he received a sentence of imprisonment: 3 years for wounding with intent; 3 years and 4 months for robbery; and, finally, 6 months for possession of an offensive weapon.  I am told these related to offences committed in 2001. 

14.  The defendant is a decoration worker living in Cheung Chau.  He said he participated in the attack out of a misguided sense of loyalty to another attacker who had a dispute with one the victims over a woman.

15.  The maximum sentence of imprisonment for these offences is one of life imprisonment.  There is no tariff sentence. 

16.  In the Secretary for Justice v Hau Ping Chuen [2008] HKLRD 673, the range of sentence was observed to be from 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment depending on the circumstances.  Clearly, the range of factual circumstances can vary greatly in relation to the offences. 

17.  These offences were serious, they were pre-meditated and occurred in a public place.  It involved multiple armed attackers.  The attack was concerted and conducted in a way which trapped the victims and others inside the premises as the attackers came first from the rear door and then from the front door into the premises. 

18.  I have been referred to the outcome of the case against Chan Lek-sun, who is referred to in the facts of this case.  He pleaded guilty to the same charges as the defendant and received a total sentence of 56 months’ imprisonment based on an overall starting point of 7 years’ imprisonment. 

19.  The facts referred to in the sentencing of Chan’s involvement, showed that Chan’s involvement in the offences is broadly on a par with the defendant’s.  Chan himself was injured during the course of the assault and taken to hospital where he was identified.  Chan did have four previous court appearances for offences of violence in both 2009 for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and fighting in a public place in 2010, and this contrasted with the defendant who had committed serious offences whilst he was younger as juvenile but not as an adult, and certainly no offences in the last 15 years.

20.  The extent to which Chan’s criminal record may have aggravated his sentence is not articulated either in the sentence imposed by the original court or by the Court of Appeal when they considered the matter. 

21.  The defendant has no adult convictions.  I consider that the proper overall starting point for him is not necessarily the 7 years or 84 months starting point for Chan, but should be a starting point to 78 months’ imprisonment which leads to a sentence after the one-third deduction of plea on each charge of 52 months’ imprisonment. 

22.  All these offences were part of a single enterprise and committed broadly on the same time on the same date.  The sentences for these charges should be served concurrently thus leading to an overall sentence of 52 months’ imprisonment. 

23.  So, in summary, the sentences on the Charges 1, 2, 5, and 6 will be one of 52 months’ imprisonment to be served concurrently.