HKSAR v. LAU YAT LUNG

 DCCC357/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 357 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant appeared before the court in respect of two charges. The 1st charge was one of claiming to be a member of a triad society. The 2nd charge was a charge of wounding with intent. The defendant pleaded not guilty to both charges. After trial, I acquitted the defendant of the 1st charge, and in respect of the 2nd charge, I convicted him of the lesser offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

2.  The offence was committed on 8 December 2007 at cargo-loading and unloading area of the Sun Fung Centre in Kwai Chung. The victim in the case, Mr Chan To, (I will refer to him as PW1) at the time was the operator of a freight company called Hang Lee Express. The company operated from premises at the 3rd Floor of Block A of the Sun Fung Centre in Kwai Chung.

3.  In November 2006, the defendant was employed by that company as a driver. He was authorised to keep the vehicle he drove overnight, and he parked the vehicle at a car park in Sheung Shui and for that was reimbursed by PW1’s wife who also worked for the freight company. The operators of the car park were paid a deposit of $1,100 for the use of their facilities by the defendant. This money was actually handed to them by the defendant, but he was reimbursed by his company and a receipt was given to his company in respect of that deposit.

4.  The defendant resigned from the company in August 2007 and was paid his outstanding wages. The victim tried to recoup the deposit paid to the operators of the car park, but he was informed by them that the money had already been paid to the defendant. After leaving the victim’s company, the defendant obtained employment with another freight company called Hing Wong HK China Freight Limited.

5.  On 8 December 2007, the defendant was working for that company when he had occasion to make a delivery at the Sun Fung Centre in Kwai Chung. At around lunchtime, he arrived at the cargo-loading area to make the delivery. After he had parked his vehicle in a loading bay, the defendant stood on the podium at the rear of his vehicle and it was there that he was observed by the victim, PW1, and PW1 approached the defendant and demanded repayment of the money which had been paid for the car park deposit. This led to an argument and there was pushing and bumping on both sides. Other employees of the victim stepped in, and the argument subsided. The victim returned to work on his vehicle which was parked in another loading bay, and he was in the process of unloading cartons from that vehicle.

6.  Some 15 to 20 minutes after the initial argument, the defendant and another man approached the victim whilst he was working at his vehicle. There was a further argument. The victim was approached by the defendant and the other man and they started to assault the defendant(victim?). Other men arrived at the scene. The assault continued and during the course of that assault, the victim was struck on his head by somebody wielding an iron bar, and it was that injury which caused the defendant being charged with a wounding with intent charge.

7.  From the evidence, I was not satisfied that the defendant was aware of the presence of the man wielding the iron bar, and I therefore was not satisfied that that charge had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the victim had sustained a number of other injuries during the course of the assault upon him, mainly with scratches and abrasions in the vicinity of his neck, and it was in respect of those injuries that I convicted the defendant of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. I was sure beyond a reasonable doubt that he was involved in the attack upon the victim.

8.  The defendant has 31 previous convictions. They are for a variety of offences. His last conviction for violence, however, was in 1996 when for a charge of assault, he was dealt with by way of fine, and his last conviction was in 2002.

9.  I was told in mitigation that the defendant, who is in his early 30s, is still employed by the Hing Wong HK China Freight Limited. I am told that at the time of the offence, he was employed as a driver but because of his performance, he has now been promoted and is in charge of a crew of 18 goods vehicles for the company.

10.  A letter from the company has been placed before the court and that speaks of the excellent performance of the defendant and his responsibility and attention to detail. The letter states that he has a good relationship with his colleagues and they found him to be an honest person.

11.  I am told that the defendant is married and that his wife lives in Shenzhen. At the time of the offence, he was also living in Shenzhen but because of the deteriorating health of his mother, he now resides at the family home in Hong Kong. I am told that his mother is chronically ill and is on constant medication. His father is 70 and finds it difficult to move around.

12.  I was told in mitigation that the previous offences committed by the defendant arose mainly because of his problem with drugs. I am told that since 2002, he has managed to stay away from drugs and has sorted his life out and he has turned over a new leaf. In 2005, he obtained a driving licence and has worked as a driver since obtaining that licence, and he married in 2006.

13.  I have considered the circumstances of this offence and the defendant’s previous record. In all the circumstances, I have decided to give you a chance and deal with this case by way of a fine. If you re-offend, you will not be dealt with so leniently again.

DEFENDANT: Understand.

14.  I am going to fine you $2,000 for the offence and order that you pay compensation to the victim of $2,000.

DEFENDANT: Understand.

15.  When can that be paid?

DEFENDANT: Today.