HKSAR v. CHAN WAH HING AND ANOTHER

HCCC 243/2024

[2026] HKCFI 3360

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 243 OF 2024

_____________________

_____________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

INTRODUCTION

1.  On 5 September 2022, CHEUNG Ngai‑keung (the deceased) was brutally murdered inside the Tai Wong Yeh Temple in Ping Yuen Road, Ta Kwu Ling, New Territories.  He was forcibly detained by the two defendants, threatened with a knife, and then he was killed during the struggle.  The jury has found both D1 and D2 guilty of murder (Count 1).  The jury has also found D1 guilty of Count 2 (preventing the lawful burial of a body), Count 3 (blackmail), and Count 4 (doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice).

2.  As for D2, he pleaded guilty to Counts 2 and 3 on 23 April 2026, on the first day of the trial.  He has been tried together with D1 and found guilty by the jury only on Count 1 (murder).  Accordingly, I am going to sentence D2 on Counts 1, 2 and 3.

3.  The sentence for murder is fixed by law: life imprisonment.  That sentence is mandatory and will be imposed on both D1 and D2 on Count 1 in any event.  What follows is a determination of the appropriate sentences for Counts 2, 3 and 4 against D1, and for Counts 2 and 3 against D2, and the question whether those sentences should run concurrently with or consecutively to each other.  The court must still pronounce sentences on these additional counts to reflect the gravity of those separate criminal acts committed by D1 and D2 respectively.

FACTS

THE MURDER (COUNT 1) – D1 AND D2

4.  D1 and D2 both resided in Ping Yeung Village, Ta Kwu Ling, New territories.  D1 was an indigenous inhabitant of the village.  D2 had resided in the Village since birth.  At the material time, D1 was 64 and D2 was 29.  The deceased was 51 and D1 had arranged to meet with the deceased outside Game 88, a game centre in Luen Wo Hui, Fanling on 5 September 2022 at 1 pm.  On the previous day, D1 told D2 about the meeting and complained to D2 about the debt owed by the deceased.  They planned to induce the deceased and detained him in the Tai Wong Yeh Temple if the discussion with the deceased has fallen through.  In the morning of 5 September 2022, D1 alone drove his car to the temple and cut the iron chain lock with a grinder and he later drove back to the temple again with D2 to help him to remove the heavy iron pole in order to allow vehicle access to the front yard of the temple.  After the deceased boarded D1’s car at around 1 pm opposite Game 88, D2 also emerged from Game 88 and quickly approached the car feigning a chance encounter and sat at the backseat behind the deceased. D1 later drove the deceased to the temple under a pretext.  When D1’s car arrived and stopped in front of the temple, D2 left the vehicle to smoke.  D1 and the deceased remained in the car and they soon got into an argument about money. When the deceased alighted from the car, D2 immediately restrained him by the neck as instructed by D1 and dragged him into the temple under his arm.  The deceased kept on struggling with D2. D1 took a knife and alighted from his car.  He gave the knife to D2 who held the deceased at knifepoint.  D1 then fetched a roll of grey duct tape from his car to further restrain the deceased.  The duct tape was first used to wrap the hands of the deceased.  The deceased kept struggling but was unable to break the grip.  Eventually, the deceased’s entire head was wrapped around with the roll of duct tape in multiple layers covering his eyes, nose and mouth completely.  The deceased then staggered and swayed from side to side, and in doing so, his left chest slammed into the knife D2 was still holding and sustained a shallow stab wound.  Within minutes, the deceased died of suffocation which was the direct cause of the death.

5.  Both defendants were present throughout the fatal head-wrapping and by the verdict of the jury in Count 1, each took part in restraining and the wrapping of the deceased by the roll of the grey duct tape with the intention to kill or causing really serious bodily harm.  

PREVENTING LAWFUL BURIAL (COUNT 2) – D1 AND D2

6.  After the death of the deceased, D1 and D2 jointly lifted the body and moved the body out of the temple.  They buried the body in a shallow grave behind the temple, poured cement over it and prevented lawful burial.  Two bags of cement were bought by D1 before the incident and the empty bags were thrown away and all the digging tools were almost brand new and were placed inside the temple and they were washed afterwards.

BLACKMAIL (COUNT 3) – D1 AND D2

7.  Between 5 and 9 September 2022, D1 and D2 sent SMS and also Whatsapp messages and made phone calls (using a voice changer) to Ms. He Menghui (PW1), ex-wife of the deceased, demanding HK$3.6 million.  The messages included explicit threats: “…Otherwise, his hands will be chopped off.”  D2 admitted in his statements to the police (5^th VRI) that he had typed the SMS messages and made some of the calls.  D1 was also present when those messages and calls were sent, and earlier in the temple, he had helped recording a voice message from the deceased using his own phone and in particular, he was seen to be lingering on a footbridge for 32 minutes at around noon time on 9 September 2022, looking towards the direction of the taxi stand near the Luen Wo Hui wet market, when PW1 was supposed to turn up in the taxi stand with the ransom money.  Feeling suspicious about the movement of PW1 and worrying that the matter has already been reported to the police, both defendants later aborted the plan and dared not to turn up to collect the money from PW1 at the BB Café in Luk Keng as previously arranged.

PERVERTING THE COURSE OF PUBLIC JUSTICE (COUNT 4) – D1 ONLY

8.  After the murder, D1 disposed of:

(1) his own long‑sleeved upper garment and long pants worn during the offence;

(2) the roll of grey duct tape used to kill the deceased; and

(3) the deceased’s diamond ring, a pair of glasses, a watch, and twomobile phones.

All these acts were done with the intention of concealing his commission of murder and misleading the police investigation.

PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEFENDANTS

D1 – CHAN WAH HING

9.  D1 is now aged 67.  He was educated to Primary Six.  He has no criminal record.  At the age of 16, he emigrated to the United Kingdom and worked in the kitchen and he later returned to Hong Kong in 2013 to look after his parents. Before his remand, he was unemployed and his primary income came from property rental and solar power rebates (approximately HK$20,000 per month).  He has been in custody since 14 September 2022.  No mitigation is advanced by Mr. Boyton and he has shown no remorse.  His allegations of police misconduct and duress by D2 were all rejected by the jury according to their verdicts.

D2 – CHAN YIU LUNG

10.  D2 is now aged 33.  He was educated to Form 2.  He has a criminal record in relation to two charges of “Acting as a member of a triad society” in 2012 for which he was placed in a Probation Order for 12 months.  He completed the probation successfully and has no subsequent convictions.  Before the incident, he was unemployed having previously worked in transportation.  He is still single and lived with his parents.

11.  In mitigation, Mr. Davies portrayed D2 as a vulnerable and stupid young man who has been misled by his “uncle Hing” (D1) whom he perceived as the “boss” and was the mastermind of the incident.  D2 has shown genuine remorse and reflection of his stupid act and chose to speak the truth and helped uncover what really happened in the whole incident.  Mr. Davies prayed in aid of the following matters: -

· D2 confessed to the police in his VRIs.

· Hevoluntarily led the police to the burial site and pointed out where the deceased’s body was buried, enabling its discovery.

· He participated in a crime re‑enactment.

· He pleaded guilty to Counts 2 and 3.

· He offered to plead guilty to manslaughter (though the offer was not accepted by the prosecution).

12.  Numerous mitigation letters for D2 (see Enclosures 1 to 11 in D2’s mitigation bundle) were submitted for my considerations: -

· His parents describe him as a kind, filial, helpful son who was led astray by D1 out of greed.

· His dragon dance master and friends describe him as responsible, reliable, and community‑oriented.

· The village chairman and village representative describe him as sincere, respectful, and not vicious or violent.

· In D2’s own mitigation letter, he expresses deep remorse and accepts responsibility for his stupid acts.

SENTENCING PRINCIPLES AND AUTHORITIES

COUNT 1 – MURDER – LIFE IMPRISONMENT

13.  The sentence for murder is fixed by law which is one of life imprisonment (Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212, s.2).  No discretion exists.  Accordingly, both D1 and D2 will receive life imprisonment on Count 1.

COUNT 2 – PREVENTING LAWFUL BURIAL

14.  The leading authority is R v Chu Kwai‑ying & Anor [1996] 4 HKC 40, where the Court of Appeal upheld a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment for hiding a body for over a week, with mutilation.  In HKSAR v Tsang Siu Ching [2001] 1 HKLRD 522, a consecutive sentence of 12 months (on top of 3.5 years for manslaughter) was upheld for burial of a body after an unlawful killing.  In HKSAR v Lee Kwan Kong & Ors (CACC 198/2004), a 4‑year sentence for conspiracy to pervert justice (which included disposal of a body) was upheld.

15.  Here, D1 and D2 jointly buried the body in a shallow grave, covered it with cement, and concealed the killing.  The body was hidden for about 10 days, causing inevitable distress to the deceased’s ex-wife (PW1), his sister (PW2) and other close relatives.   This was a deliberate attempt to hide the crime.  The appropriate starting point after trial for such an offence is 5 years’ imprisonment.

COUNT 3 – BLACKMAIL

16.  Blackmail is a very serious offence.  The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Fong King Choi [2020] 2 HKC 219 set out the relevant factors: (1) nature and amount of the demand; (2) manner of demand (alone or with others, violence, triad connection, repetition); and (3) effect on the victim.  In HKSAR v Ki Chun Yim (CACC 398/2011), an overall sentence of 7 years for multiple blackmail charges involving death threats against family members was upheld.  In HKSAR v Chan Kim-chung, Nelson [2012] 2 HKLRD 263, the Court of Appeal considered that the appropriate starting point in relation to a blackmail of US$350,000 with two others with threats to cut off the victim’s limbs is 6years imprisonment.

17.  Here, the demand was for HK$3.6 million which is a very substantial amount.  The threats were explicit and repeated over a span of 5 days, including threats of chopping off hands.  The victim (PW1) was so terrified; she trembled and begged the defendants over the phone to let her speak to her husband and do not hurt him.  The offence was premeditated and a voice changer was pre-ordered and used to distort the voice of the speaker on the phone.  Threats involving family members are not be tolerated and must be met with strongly deterrent sentence.  The appropriate starting point after trial for this offence is 6 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

COUNT 4 – PERVERTING THE COURSE OF PUBLIC JUSTICE (AGAINST D1 ONLY)

18. The common law offence of doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice is one of the most serious interferences with the administration of justice. The Court of Appeal in SJ v Lee Ying‑tung [2023] 3 HKLRD 667 (adopting R v Coslett [2017] EWCA Crim 2376) held that for concealment of evidence of a serious offence (here murder), the starting point after trial is in the range of 2 to 3 years, and that immediate custody is required in all but the most exceptional circumstances. In HKSAR v LCL [2025] 5 HKLRD 1100, the Court of Appeal stressed that perverting justice is a direct challenge to the rule of law and must be met with substantial sentences, stating:

“Perverting the course of justice is a serious offence, as it involves acts which pose as a direct challenge to the fundamentals of a societal institution under the rule of law and affects the administration of justice by the courts.” (paragraph 98)

19.  The relevant sentencing factors, drawn from R v Tunney [2007] 1 Cr App R(S) 91 and approved in Lee Ying‑tung, are:

· First, the seriousness of the substantive offence to which the perverting of the course of justice relates. Here, the underlying offence is murder – the most serious in all of the criminal offences.

· Second, the degree of persistence in the conduct in question. D1’s conduct was persistent: he disposed of his own clothing, the duct tape, the deceased’s ring, glasses, watch, and two mobile phones.

· Third, the effect on the course of justice itself. Here, the attempt was ultimately unsuccessful (the body of the deceased was found and the police investigation was steered towards murder from kidnapping and continued), but that does not reduce culpability. The Court of Appeal in Lee Ying‑tung at [74] stated:

“We considered that the starting point for an offence such as this must be visited with a substantial term of imprisonment in order to emphasis the innate seriousness of the offence itself, but also to deter others who are minded to try and conceal or destroy vital evidence of serious crimes.”

20.  Taking into account of all these factors, and noting that D1’s role in the commission of the murder and his acts in the subsequent cover‑up, the appropriate starting point after trial for Count 4 is 3 years’ imprisonment.

SENTENCES FOR D1

21.  D1 was found guilty by the jury unanimously on Counts 2, 3 and 4 after trial.  No discount for a guilty plea applies on any of these counts.  As said, he has shown no remorse throughout this trial.  

22.  Count 2 (Preventing lawful burial): 5 years’ imprisonment.

23.  Count 3 (Blackmail): 6 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

24.  Count 4 (Perverting the course of justice): 3 years’ imprisonment.

25.  The offences in Counts 2 - 4 arose from the murder.  They are closely linked in time, place, and purpose.  However, of the three Counts, Count 3 (blackmail) is a separate and distinct offence while Counts 2 and 4 were all in relation to cover-up and concealment of the murder. In my judgment, an overall sentence of 7 years and 6 months for Count 2 - 4 is appropriate to reflect the added culpability of the blackmail offence. I therefore order the sentences on Counts 2 and 4 to run concurrently with each other and 2 years and 6 months of the sentence on Count 3 to run consecutively to the sentences on Count 2 and Count 4.  Finally, I order the sentences in respect of Count 2 - 4 (7 years and 6 months) to run concurrently with the life sentence on Count 1.

SENTENCES FOR D2

COUNT 2 – PREVENTING LAWFUL BURIAL

26.  As said, the proper starting point for Count 2 is 5 years’ imprisonment.

27.  In D2’s case, a 25% reduction is appropriate because D2 has already indicated that he would plead guilty to Count 2 at the Case Management Hearing on 7 November 2025 (see HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam CACC 418/2014) and the discount is therefore 15 months’ imprisonment.

28.  Furthermore, D2 voluntarily led the police to the burial site and pointed out where the deceased’s body was buried.  This was of great assistance to the prosecution and saved considerable police resources.  It also demonstrates genuine remorse. Such cooperation justifies an additional discount.  I give an additional reduction of 6 months.

29.  The resulting sentence on Count 2 is therefore 39 months (3 years 3 months) (60 months – 15 months – 6 months).

COUNT 3 – BLACKMAIL

30.  As stated, the proper starting point for Count 3 is 6 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

31.  As D2 pleaded guilty to this Count only on the first day of trial, the discount for guilty plea is 20% and is therefore 15 months’ imprisonment (see Ngo Van Nam).

32.  No further discount is warranted for this Count, however, as the discovery of the body related primarily to the unlawful burial, not the blackmail.

33.  The resulting sentence on Count 3 therefore is 60 months (5 years’ imprisonment) (75 months – 15 months).

34.  As explained, while it is true that the offences in Counts 2 and 3 arose from the murder and they are closely linked in time, place, and purpose but they are still separate in nature.  I consider that only a total sentence of 6 years (72 months) can properly reflect the gravity of these two offences in D2’s case. I therefore order that 12 month of the sentence in Count 2 to run consecutively to the sentence of 60 months in Count 3 and concurrently with the life sentence on Count 1.  

35.  For the record, D2 must be praised forhis co-operation with the police, which led to the discovery of the deceased’s body.  This not only assisted the prosecution but also provided closure to the victim’s family. The additional discount given to him in Count 2 has already reflected the court’s recognition of that effort by him.

CONCLUSION

36.  The murder of the deceased in this case was brutal, callous and pre-planned.  Words fail to describe the heinous crime D1 and D2 havecommitted.  Both defendants acted together to kill the deceased and after the killing, they went on to bury the body and even blackmailed his family member.  On the jury’s verdicts, each of the defendant played his role as a participant in a joint enterprise to carry out the attackby wrapping the head of the deceased completely with the duct tape causing him to suffocate, and did so in the state of mind that made each of the defendant guilty of murder.  The same jury also rejected the defence of duress raised by D1 on the remaining three counts and found him guilty as charged on those counts.

37.  The mandatory life sentence reflects the gravity of the offence of murder.  The additional sentences on D1 and D2 mark the separate criminality of demanding ransoms, concealing the body, and also concealing and destroying the evidence of murder on the part of D1.