HKSAR v. LAW WAI MAN

DCCC 100/2022

[2023] HKDC 488

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 100 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to 5 violence-related offences (Charges 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6)  and 1 "Theft" offence (Charge 4). He assaulted and threatened a former female cohabitee and snatched her cell phone.

Summary of Facts

Background

2.  The defendant and Madam Law (PW1)  began their relationship in 2006.  Their son was born in 2007.  They resided at a public housing unit at Wo Tin House, Shatin Pass Estate.  In November 2018, the relationship between the defendant and PW1 turned sour.  PW1 and their son moved to reside with a relative elsewhere.

Charges 1 to 4

3.  About 6:10 a.m. on 28 January 2019, PW1 was on her way home passing a rear lane at Tsz Lok Estate in Tsz Wan Shan.  The defendant suddenly appeared.  He grabbed her neck and pulled her hair.  He also slapped, punched and kicked her.  PW1 tried to defend herself, but the defendant continued his attack.  This is Charge 1.

4.  PW1 also alleged that the defendant took out a military knife (about 10 cm long)  with a sheath.  This is Charge 2.  She pushed him away and fled, causing him to drop the knife on the ground.

5.  PW1 ran towards a security guard post at Lok Shing House, Tsz Lok Estate to seek help.  The defendant soon caught up with PW1, grabbing her neck from behind and pulling her out of the guard post.  He then dragged PW1 onto a taxi and headed to Shatin Pass Estate.  During the journey, PW1 screamed for help, but the defendant covered her mouth.  This is Charge 3.

6.  Upon arriving at Shatin Pass Estate, the defendant dragged PW1 out of the taxi and up the stairs to the estate's gate.  PW1 grabbed the handrail.  The defendant punched and kicked her, forcing her to let go of the handrail.  He then dragged PW1 into Wo Tin House whilst she kept screaming for help.  A security guard saw what happened and informed the control room.  The defendant dragged PW1 into the lift and went up to the 40^th Floor.  As she was being dragged through the corridor, PW1 screamed for help and managed to press the door bells of some flats.  Neighbours came out to hold the defendant.  PW1 ran into a neighbour's flat. 

7.  The defendant fled before the Police arrived.

8.  In the course of being dragged to Wo Tin House, PW1 once took out her Samsung mobile phone trying to call the Police.  The defendant snatched it from her and it was never returned to her.  This is Charge 4.

9.  PW1 was sent to a nearby hospital for treatment. There was tenderness on her neck and right face; and bruising on both arms. Her scalp was swelling as well.  She was discharged on the same day.

10.  CCTV footage of locations along the route captured the defendant dragging PW1 from Tsz Lok Estate to Shatin Pass Estate.

Charges 5 and 6

11.  From 9 to 11 March 2019, PW1 received messages from the defendant with death threats.  This is Charge 5.

12.  On 15 March 2019, PW1 received a message from the defendant, saying that he had another matter which was much worse than the case she had against him, and that he was doomed.  He did not want to see her.  And if he sees her, she would die with him.  On 17 March 2019, PW1 received messages from the defendant, saying that since she did not allow him to see their son, she had to pay the price of death.  If he could not find her, he would chop her to death.  This is Charge 6.

13.  PW1 was frightened after reading those messages. She was concerned with the safety of herself and her family.

14.  Text messages contained on PW1's phone and the defendant's phone were examined.  Their contents confirmed PW1's allegations in relation to Charges 5 and 6.

Arrest and admissions

15.  The defendant was arrested on 19 March 2019.  In his video recorded interview, he recounted what took place on 28 January 2019. He admitted what he did in relation to Charges 1, 2 and 3.  He claimed that he had consumed alcohol at that time, so his acts might have been more violent. Regarding the knife, he said it was a fruit knife of about 8 inches long.  Regarding Charge 6, the defendant admitted having texted PW1 on 15 March 2019 in order to scare her.  Regarding the messages sent on 17 March 2019, he claimed that he had no collection.

Mitigation

16.  The defendant is almost 51 and has 8 conviction records, which included 1 "Assault occasioning actual bodily harm" offence, 1 "Criminal intimidation" offence and 1 "Murder" offence[1].  Defence counsel Ms. Remedios informed me that the defendant committed the murder offence before he committed the present 6 offences, but all such offences took place around the same time.

17.  In mitigation, Ms. Remedios explained to me that the defendant is divorced.  He and his ex-wife have a daughter (aged 32).  He and PW1 have a son (aged 16).  After he broke up with PW1, the defendant resides alone.  Ms. Remedios submitted that during the offence period in the present case, the defendant was under the influence of ICE.  Ms. Remedios mentioned that the defendant committed the murder offence also under the influence of ICE.

18.  Regarding the offences in the present case, Ms. Remedios submitted that after killing the victim in the murder case, the defendant panicked and did not know what to do.  He wanted to buy some time to see his daughter and son for one last time.  Not knowing what the defendant had done, PW1 did not allow the defendant to see their son.  The defendant's intention was to drag PW1 to the flat at Wo Tin House to see their son.  Ms. Remedios pointed out that the present offences arose from their disputes over the visitation arrangements for their son.

Sentence

19.  This is indeed a sad case.  When the defendant is serving a life prison term, sentencing him for the present offences becomes practically academic.  The defendant has no one but himself to blame; he cannot shift the blame to drugs. There is no excuse for anyone (including the defendant)  to consume dangerous drugs.  And those who took drugs must shoulder the responsibilities for their acts, which are usually also criminal in nature.

Charge 1

20. PW1's injuries might have been minor, but the manner of the defendant's attack was savage. I adopt a starting point of 9 months' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, I sentence the defendant to 6 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 2

21. Be it a military knife or fruit knife[2], the defendant's intention of carrying it with him and displaying it (albeit covered by a sheath)  was clear. It is most fortunate that PW1 was not harmed by that knife. I adopt a starting point of 12 months' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, I sentence the defendant to 8 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 3

22. I accept that the "kidnapping" act in this charge is not related to using the victim as a hostage or to demand for a ransom, but rather arose "as a sequel to family tiffs or lovers disputes". I adopt a starting point of 15 months' imprisonment[3]. With the timely guilty plea, I sentence the defendant to 10 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 4

23. I accept that the defendant did not snatch PW1's cell phone out of greed. I adopt a starting point of 4.5 months' imprisonment[4]. With the timely guilty plea, I sentence the defendant to 3 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charges 5 & 6

24. The defendant is no stranger to the "Criminal intimidation" offence. Clearly, he is a man of violence and has grave difficulties in controlling his words and anger. I adopt a starting point of 9 months' imprisonment for each charge. With the timely guilty plea, I sentence the defendant to 6 months' imprisonment each for Charges 5 and 6.

Overall Sentence

25. Charges 1 to 4 arose from the incident of attacking PW1 and dragging her to Wo Tin House. Charges 5 and 6 arose from the messages sent to PW1. Bearing in mind the totality principle, I consider a global starting point of 27 months' imprisonment appropriate for all 6 charges. With the timely guilty pleas, the overall sentence is reduced to 18 months. I order the sentences to run in the following manner :-

(i)  Charges 1, 2 and 4 concurrent; but 4 months consecutive to Charge 3; and

(ii)  Charges 5 and 6 concurrent, but 4 months consecutive to Charges 1 to 4.

Thus, arriving at a total prison term of 18 months for all 6 charges.

26. The defendant is currently serving a life sentence. Assuming that his murder conviction stands, he will be at least in his late 70s or early 80s if he could ever be released. I see no reason why I should not order the sentences in the present case to run concurrently with his life sentence in HCCC 167/2020. And I so order.