THE QUEEN v. LEUNG HANG-SANG AND AONTHER

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Kempster, J.A.:

1. On 19th March 1986 Leung Hang-sang and Wong Kwok-leung were convicted by a jury of manslaughter. They had been charged with murder. de Basto J. sentenced each of them to eight years and six months imprisonment. Leung was aged 18 years at the time and Wong 22. They now seek the leave of this Court to appeal against their sentences.

2. The circumstances leading to the convictions may briefly be described. On 12th October 1985 the applicants, together with another man, attacked Leung Kam-wah, knocked him to the ground and kicked him. He sustained brain injury resulting from a fractured skull and bruises were found all over his head. He was seen by a witness covered in blood and in a state of convulsion. He was taken to hospital and died 30 hours later. It is not apparent whether the fatal injury resulted from the deceased's fall or from kicks inflicted upon him.

3. In passing sentence the trial judge observed that the attack was Triad related; a matter which we regard as one of profound significance necessarily affecting the length of sentence. Having regard to this factor it is hardly surprising that the attack took place in the context of drug trafficking.

4. Courts do not readily sentence men of the age of the two applicants to prison at all, let alone for long terms. Unhappily, however, crimes of violence are only too often committed by young men aged between 17 and 23 years. We take the view that some sentences passed by Hong Kong Courts for manslaughter, even when no weapon has been used, have been lenient in the extreme.

5. On behalf of Wong Mr. Murray has emphasised that the jury negatived any intention on the part of either applicant to cause death or really serious injury. We fully honour the implicit finding of the jury. The facts are to be approached on the basis that by a deliberate attack, the applicants intended to inflict injury. Unhappily for the applicants the injuries in fact inflicted proved fatal.

6. Taking all the matters already canvassed into consideration we find the sentences of eight years and six months excessive. Like the trial judge we are not prepared to distinguish between the applicants as regards moral culpability. We allow the applications and treat this as the hearing of the appeals. We substitute for the sentences of eight years and six months sentences of 6 years.