CRIMINAL CASE NO. 275 OF 2010
COURT: The three defendants, originally jointly charged with murder, pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of manslaughter and it was accepted by the prosecution.
This incident, with triad revenge overtones, arose from a group attack by the defendants and another 10-odd to 20 persons on another group. People other than the defendants in their group had beer bottles with them, and the attack lasted several minutes.
The deceased was eventually singled out, dragged to another spot, punched and kicked, and whilst he was lying on the ground, D1 had stamped or jumped down upon the deceased’s body.
Forensic pathologists were of the opinion that the cause of death was a rupture to the liver consistent with the stamping, rather than injuries inflicted at the gang attack.
D1, aged 20, has one previous conviction in October 2009 of assault occasioning bodily harm, a matter which happened before this event.
D2, now aged 15 - 14 at the time of the incident - has one previous of assault with intent to rob, which happened before, but charged after, the present incident. He has already served a term of remand in the rehabilitation centre.
D3, aged 17, has two previous records of affray. The present offence was committed whilst on bail of one of those.
In sentencing the defendants, I have taken into account their plea, letters of mitigation, contents of probation, and psychologists’ reports, and mitigation forwarded by their counsel on their behalf.
Counsel for D2 and D3 contended that the fatal blow which was the cause of death was inflicted by D1 out of the other defendants’ foreseeability. There was evidence that the beating and kicking had ceased when D1 inflicted the fatal injury. It was thus submitted that what D2 and D3 had actually inflicted earlier were no more than superficial blows and kicks, not resulting in any bone fracture or damages to internal organs.
It was further submitted that the fact that D2 and D3 were not directly responsible for the death should be reflected in their sentence.
The crux of the matter, however, is that each of them had chosen to join in an organised criminal gang and set out to beat up the deceased. Any person who attached himself to such an attack, whether or not he himself inflicted the injuries, bears equal responsibility for the acts of the co‑accused. It is against the strength of authorities that in circumstances such as the present case blame should be apportioned amongst the defendants.
In fact, the basis for their pleas is obviously that all three defendants committed an intentional and unlawful act which caused the death, and that the act was dangerous in the sense that it was one which all sober and reasonable people would realise must subject the victim to the risk of some harm.
Youth, family situation, ignorance, misguided loyalty, or misinterpretation of “yee hei” provides no excuses or mitigation for an offence of such gravity.
I consider a sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment appropriate in such circumstances for each of the three defendants.
In the case of D2, however, the indication of an early plea might have some bearing on the pleas of D1 and D3. I am prepared to knock off 9 months for that.
Whilst the reports or letters in mitigation might provide explanation as to the cause of this tragedy, I find nothing in them which reveal extenuating circumstances justifying a departure from that sentence.
So sentence is as follows: D1, 8 years; D2, 7 years 3 months; and D3, 8 years.