HKSAR v. Kwok Siu Yu and Others

HCCC 106/2014

HCCC 120 & 432/2014

(Consolidated)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NOS 106, 120 AND 432 OF 2014

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: This matter arises out of the breakdown of the marriage between Ho Ping-yee and her husband Lee Chi-kwan in which there was another woman, the mistress and now the girlfriend of Mr Lee, Tam Pui-ying. Out of jealousy, bitterness, and a desire for revenge, Ho Ping-yee arranged for sulphuric acid to be thrown over Tam Pui-ying. She did not want to carry out this callous and horrific attack by herself so she set about recruiting others to do her dirty work for her.

She spoke first with Fok Ka-po. At 34, as he was then, he was one of the oldest defendants in this case, along with the 2nd defendant, Yeung Ming-ming. He was somebody who, in all other respects, would have been considered to be a hard-working man with a family and a secure job. Fok Ka-po worked for Mr Lee in PCK2 Limited as a senior engineer in the watch industry.

We do not know why he embarked upon his most unusual relationship with Ho Ping-yee, but it is clear, on his own evidence, that he befriended her and he was prepared to tell her confidential information about the business dealings of her estranged husband in order to assist her in her divorce.

They clearly had a close relationship because he was in constant contact with her. He knew about her hiring a private detective to follow Tam Pui-ying and about the altercation in a car park in January of 2012, when Ho Ping-yee had attempted to attack Miss Tam. There is no doubt, therefore, even on his own evidence, that he knew the degree of animosity, anger and bitterness felt by Ho Ping-yee towards Tam Pui-ying.

It was Fok Ka-po who introduced Ho Hoi-kin, otherwise known as Ho Lan-chai, into this conspiracy. He, like Ho Ping-yee, for some reason I cannot fathom, does not appear before this court. It was Ho Hoi-kin who introduced Yeung Ming-ming to Ho Ping-yee at a meal in Lei Yue Mun on 22 February 2013. Much of the evidence turned about what happened at that meal.

The evidence about what occurred at the meal comes from the oral evidence in trial of Fok Ka-po and Yeung Ming-ming, and from the interview evidence of Fok Ka-po over three interviews on 19 and 20 June of 2014, the contents of which he disavowed when giving evidence. In essence, in evidence under oath, Fok Ka-po said that he was a party to a conspiracy to harass Tam Pui-ying and to slap her if necessary, but not to throw acid over her.

Yeung Ming-ming, on the other hand, covering the same meal, gave evidence that he was involved in an agreement to chase a personal debt against her husband within the mainland and knew nothing about any agreement to harass or to throw acid.

By their verdicts, the jury clearly did not believe either of these two different versions of events given about this meal and did believe the evidence given by Fok Ka-po in his video-recorded interviews, as well as the evidence of the second prosecution witness, Lin Chun-kit.

It was Yeung Ming-ming who is therefore the next link in the chain, for it is he who contacted Lin Chun-kit. Lin Chun-kit gave evidence of Yeung Ming-ming’s involvement and the part he himself played in recruiting others to carry out their agreement. It was Lin Chun-kit who recruited Cheung Hang-ming who, in turn, recruited Wong Ka-yin and others, but perhaps most importantly, Ng Yan-lok who was ultimately to recruit Kwok Siu-yu. Kwok Siu-yu was just 15 years old at the time of this offence, some four years younger than Ng Yan-lok and half the age of the other defendants, save for Wong Ka-yin who was 20 at the time.

A considerable amount of forethought and planning went into this crime. The evidence suggests that Ho Ping-yee had previously tried to recruit others to harm Tam Pui-ying but without success. A private detective had been following her for some considerable time and was used to take recent photographs of Tam Pui-ying for identification purposes. He also provided her home and work addresses which were passed between the conspirators.

At least one other attempt was made to assault her on 7 March 2013, but that was unsuccessful because she had not returned to her parents’ address that day. On that occasion, the evidence of Kwok Siu-yu is that Ng Yan-lok had been in possession of sulphuric acid and no doubt intended that it should be used given the opportunity, if the opportunity had arisen, but it did not arise on 7 March.

As a result of that evidence, it is clear that Ng Yan-lok was the person to provide the acid and possibly use it, but that Kwok Siu-yu knew what was to take place and was therefore in no doubt as to what was to be done on 8 March when he was given a cup full of sulphuric acid by Ng Yan-lok outside the office premises of Miss Tam.

And we can see the results of what he did in the photographic bundles at Books 4 to 7. They catalogue the harm done to Tam Pui-ying and to Ng Siu-ying who was an innocent bystander. By sheer good fortune, the long-lasting scarring to Miss Ng is minimal but that does not underestimate the pain and discomfort she must have experienced at that time and afterwards.

Miss Tam was by no means so lucky. The damage to her arm and leg resulted in significant amounts of tissue literally eaten away by the acid and the resultant scarring left her requiring very many post-operative visits to hospital in an effort to minimalise the unsightliness of her body. Those photographs do not tell us of the post-traumatic stress experienced by Tam Pui-ying who is continuing to receive psychological treatment now, some 18 months after the event.

Miss Tam says that she avoided the worst effects of the acid because she realised what was about to occur and turned to flee. But it has been urged on me now that Kwok Siu-yu deliberately avoided her face when he threw the acid over her. Nevertheless, the resulting harm was one of the most horrible kind, resulting in excruciating pain, severe trauma and months, if not years, of operations to a lady who is scarred for life.

The fact that those scars have been considerably reduced by her own efforts in going to Korea for plastic surgery is not to the defendants’ credit. It should also be remembered that the other lady, Miss Ng, was also injured in this attack when she went to Miss Tam’s rescue.

The fact that the result might have been worse is an issue I have considered in respect of the case against Kwok Siu-yu. It cannot be of any relevance to the other defendants who left the ultimate result to chance and it certainly does not diminish the gravity of this offence.

I have listened very carefully to all that counsel has said on behalf of all of you and I have considered that it is appropriate, even though this is a matter of conspiracy, that I should distinguish the role that each of you ultimately played in pursuit of the agreement that you made, one with the other.

Fok Ka-po, please stand. Your counsel, Mr McNamara, was unable to advance any meaningful mitigation on your behalf, constrained as he no doubt was by your instructions. There is no hint of remorse for the part you played. You have remained defiant to the end. What you did was such a huge breach of trust. You played a major part in this conspiracy. You were the first port of call for Ho Ping-yee. If not for you, this offence would definitely not have happened as we know that her earlier attempts to harm Miss Tam had failed.

You had worked for Mr Lee and known Tam Pui-ying as your colleague since October 2010. Your disloyalty and character were evidenced by the fact that you accepted that you were prepared to advance Ho Ping-yee’s campaign against her husband by giving her information arising from your employment with her husband and you did that over a period of time, despite the fact that you had only been introduced to the woman in June/July 2012, and you clearly became very close to her in the nine months between that date and 8 March 2013.

You used your position in the company to locate Tam Pui-ying on 8 March, knowing what fate awaited her, even though she had been your colleague and had done you absolutely no harm. Unlike the other defendants, you knew this young lady, and yet you still callously played a very significant part in this crime. You knew exactly what you were doing and the likely horrific consequences. You helped to plan this vicious attack and you brokered the financial deals. You were Ho Ping-yee’s right-hand man.

The offence of throwing a corrosive liquid attracts a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and that is because society takes the view that this is one of the most serious crimes which can be perpetrated against its citizens. It is by its very nature intended to cause appalling injury to the victim and to disfigure that person for life. In this case, you have been found guilty of conspiring to do so and that is no less serious.

You were 34 years old at the time of this offence, married, and you now have two children. You will not be able to help your wife raise those children for very many years to come. I do note that you have one matter on your criminal record but your previous offending history is clearly irrelevant to the matter before the court today and I have not taken that into account.

An aggravating feature of this case is that you were prepared to have someone throw acid over a person whom you knew and who was a work colleague and who had done you no personal harm. This was not therefore a crime of passion as is often the case and your part in it must have been in a cold and calculating manner, simply because of your friendship to Ho Ping-yee, because you have offered the court no explanation for this state of affairs. There has been no suggestion of financial reward or any other motivation to do such an awful thing, save for the fact of your relationship with Ho Ping-yee, which you say was platonic.

Given your involvement in this matter from the outset and your willingness to be directly involved at the end, plus the aggravating feature of your knowledge of the victim, I take the view that a starting point of 18 years is not a day too long for this horrendous attack.

You chose to plead not guilty and as a consequence, the victim had to come and give evidence and relive the events of the day. You gave evidence and you were not believed by the jury, as signified by their finding of guilt. You do not even have the benefit of the admissions that you made to the police because you resiled from them in trial. Your personal circumstances, therefore, can be no mitigation in the face of such an abhorrent crime.

You will go to prison for 18 years. You may sit down.

Lin Chun-kit, stand up, please. You also played a substantial role. You were one of the people with the triad contacts and as such, you must have known that this offence was going to be carried out. You knew who to recruit and you were willing to play a vital role as go-between. You did this for money, without any concern for the victim.

You were 30 years of age and a mature adult at the time of this offence. You have a criminal record dating back to 2004 when you were 21 years of age, and between then and 2009, you were before the courts for offences of dishonesty and possession of dangerous drugs for which you received either a fine, probation, or a short custodial sentence.

Subsequent to your arrest, you received a short custodial sentence for trafficking in dangerous drugs and given the shortness of the sentence, I presume that was for a very small amount of drugs. In April of 2015, you received a sentence of 8 months for an assault upon an inmate in prison, which was canvassed during the trial and which you served whilst also being on remand for this matter.

I suspect the trafficking offence predated this matter but, in any event, I cannot and will not take it into account. I will not take into account those later matters, nor do I take into account the earlier matters which are unrelated to these proceedings, save to note that they do support your contention that you have an ongoing drug habit and are a user of ketamine.

There has been no suggestion put before the court, however, that this had any part to play in your participation in this crime. I have read the letters provided to me by yourself and your fiancée and your father and I note your remorse and your wish that regret is passed on to the victim in this case. I have also read about your concerns for your safety and now that you have given evidence against Yeung Ming-ming, that may be the case.

You are very lucky to have a fiancée and father and siblings who will stand by you despite what you have done. I have listened to what Mr Chau has said on your behalf about your family circumstances but such mitigation cannot affect the sentence which I must pass. In cases such as this, the deterrent element must outweigh anything but the most exceptional mitigation.

To your credit, you made admissions upon arrest and pleaded guilty at the first opportunity on 7 March 2014. You also made a witness statement to the police on 9 April 2014. Further, you have been prepared to give evidence against Yeung Ming-ming and have given evidence in the trial against him, to which you were subjected to considerable cross-examination.

Your testimony was clearly believed by the jury. Because of your substantial role in bringing together the triad element of this offending, I consider that you stand only just below Fok Ka-po in terms of responsibility. You played a greater role than some of the other defendants, although you did not know the victim personally, as he did, without you, it could not have proceeded as it did for you were the liaison with Yeung Ming-ming, Shei Gor and Cheung Hang-ming and Ah Sam. Therefore, the appropriate starting point in your case is one of 17 years’ imprisonment.

However, it is a well accepted principle of sentencing that those who are prepared to assist the police and the courts in bringing criminals to justice should receive credit for so doing, even if the motivation might have been to reduce what would inevitably be a significant sentence of imprisonment.

For your plea of guilty at the very first opportunity and for the assistance you have given in bringing others to justice, I would discount the sentence by 50 per cent and you will go to prison for 8 years and 6 months. You may sit down.

Ng Yan-lok, stand up, please. You were only 19 years old at the time of this offence but what you agreed to do and what you were prepared to do indicate the callousness and total indifference of your act. You were the one who identified a 15-year-old boy to do the job for you, showing your cowardice by leaving the scene at the time of the offence and no doubt knowing that he was likely to be frightened of the repercussions if he did not do as he was told because of the position you held yourself out to have within his small social circle.

Mr Ng, on your behalf, seeks to distinguish this case from others where a 44-year-old victim received far more serious injury to her body than did Miss Tam. As has been said by other courts, when considering cases involving the throwing of corrosive liquid, the ultimate harm is fortuitous. You had no control over the act of throwing corrosive liquid carried out by Kwok Siu-yu. You gave him no direction to throw the liquid over her legs and arms, as he eventually sought to do. You did not seek to dilute the fluid used. You cannot obtain any benefit from the fact that a small percentage of Miss Tam’s body was burned as opposed to a larger percentage as suggested by Mr Ng. The photographs show horrific injuries which will be with her for life, without even considering the psychological injury she has and will continue to suffer.

You have a short criminal record which is not relevant to these proceedings and I have not taken it into consideration when deciding upon the appropriate sentence in your case.

Like Fok Ka-po, who was complicit in getting Ho Ping-yee’s scheme off the ground, so you were the final piece of the conspiracy for you found the person who would carry out your agreement. Even though you were young, at 19 years of age, compared to your co-conspirators, what you did, in recruiting such a young man whose life you have now ruined by so doing, is an aggravating feature of this case.

The Court of Appeal has time and again commented on the fact that a judge’s hands are tied to some extent in sentencing young people because leniency will result in their increased recruitment by criminal groups. I take the view that those who recruit such young people should themselves bear the responsibility of having done so and therefore the court should mark what you did when considering the sentence it must pass on you, for you; and you alone of the defendants in this case, chose to make this young man throw this sulphuric acid rather than carry out the attack yourself.

I therefore take a starting point of 18 years, the same that I took in respect of Fok Ka-po, and I add 1 year for this significant aggravating feature.

As you have stood trial and been found guilty by a jury and have no exceptional mitigation advanced upon your behalf, the sentence I therefore pass upon you is one of 19 years’ imprisonment. You may sit down.

Yeung Ming-ming, stand up. Yeung Ming-ming, you are in a similar position to Lin Chun-kit in that you agreed to be another link in the chain of recruitment and also a go-between. But you did more still than that. By their verdict, the jury clearly disbelieved all that you said in evidence and found you to be the user of the third mobile phone number which was known to be heavily used by the person seeking the whereabouts of Tam Pui-ying on the day of the offence.

Unlike some of the other defendants, you had met Ho Ping-yee and you said yourself that she seemed ferocious, so you could tell the anger and bitterness motivating her desire for revenge. You also knew that throwing corrosive liquid was a very serious matter because you commented on it at the meal on 22 February.

You, like Lin Chun-kit, were prepared to be the liaison between the likes of Cheung Hang-ming and Fok Ka-po, and it was you who was chasing for payment after the event and who threatened Ho Ping-yee, through Fok Ka-po, when payment was not forthcoming. He told us in evidence that you were very threatening and I have no doubt that that was the case.

You also callously played your part in carrying out your agreement to disfigure a young woman with almost her whole adult life ahead of her, and in having a trial, you put her through the agony of having to relive events. And this was done against the backdrop of you having lost your own wife to cancer and struggling to raise your only child. You were not unemployed. You had, according to you, a very good business and you threw all that away and for what? A few thousand dollars.

You were a mature adult when this offence occurred, at 34 years of age, and you have previous convictions for claiming to be a triad member and other matters which are not relevant to these proceedings. I note your early connection to the triads but it is not for that association that you are being sentenced. You have shown no remorse whatsoever for the part you played.

I consider that for your participation in this matter, the appropriate starting point is also 18 years and as you have no mitigation which would afford you any reduction in that sentence and you have been found guilty after trial, you also will go to prison for 18 years. Sit down.

Wong Ka-yin and Cheung Hang-ming, stand up. Both of you played a slightly lesser role as links in the chain of recruitment but, nevertheless, without your agreement to play your part, this crime would not have been committed. You knew full well the horrific consequences of what was to be done and you did it no doubt for money, for there could be no other good reason why either of you, who did not know Ho Ping-yee or the victim, would take part.

Wong Ka-yin, you were 20 at the time of this offence. You have a number of matters known against you dating from 2006 when you were just 14 years of age. You have received Detention Centre and Training Centre orders, and despite their huge success rate of preventing reoffending, you still managed to become involved in this offence; no doubt because of your connections to triads.

Despite your poor record, I have not taken it into account when passing sentence upon you. You pleaded guilty at the very first opportunity on 7 March 2014, but you have given no indication of assistance to the police and you simply stand before the court seeking the usual discount for plea.

For your agreement to play a lesser but nevertheless important role in putting others in place for this awful crime, and for passing on documentation in order to identify the victim and for agreeing to play your part to help someone disfigure a woman for life as a co-conspirator, I consider the appropriate starting point to be one of 15 years’ imprisonment.

I have taken into account everything said on your behalf by Mr Chang, including the fact that you too have a young family which will have to manage without you, but there are no exceptional circumstances which can affect the sentence which I must pass, which includes a significant deterrent sentence.

Wong Ka-yin, you will go to prison for 10 years.

Cheung Hang-ming, you stand in the same shoes as Wong Ka-yin. You were 29 years of age at the time you agreed with others to carry out this offence. You were one of the triads involved in this matter and have previously been in prison for matters of violence and dishonesty when you were 23 years old. Nevertheless, I have not taken that into account when passing sentence upon you.

I have listened to what Mr Ma has said on your behalf and I have taken into consideration your offer to make a witness statement, which you did on 9 April 2014, but the fact that you were prepared to play your part in disfiguring a total stranger for just $10,000 indicates your callous disregard for the victim at the time.

I have read the letters you provided to the court and note your remorse now for this offence and for the harm done to the victim, Miss Tam. You have a girlfriend and young son who are going to have to survive without you. I take the same starting point as I do for Wong Ka-ying, of 15 years’ imprisonment and again I discount it for the plea of guilty at the first opportunity.

You too will go to prison for 10 years. Sit down.

Kwok Siu-yu, you carried out this attack and it was you who caused the injury to Tam Pui-ying. But you are the youngest by far before the court today and you were of clear record. What you did on 8 March 2013 will affect your whole life, just as what you did that day will affect the remainder of the life of Miss Tam.

Despite your youth, the court must mark your participation in this offending with a period of imprisonment but, in so doing and having regard to the evidence which you gave, I believe that you had no idea that you were to be the actual perpetrator of this crime even though, to your detriment, you were content to be a lookout on both 7 March and 8 March. You knew that Ng Yan-lok was going to throw acid over this lady and you were prepared to play your part in support of him doing that on both days, and you were going to do that for just $3,000. But, as it happened, you were left with the job to do yourself by Ng Yan-lok on 8 March.

Given your tender age and the fact that we know that there was a significant triad involvement in this case, I am not surprised that you may have been scared of reprisals from someone if you did not carry out what you were asked to do, but you did it nevertheless, although, to your credit, you have taken responsibility for it.

I also take into account the basis of the Summary of Facts to which you pleaded and your evidence as to the events in trial. I do take the view that you were caught up in events which were beyond your control and maturity to the extent that it was you who was required to throw the liquid and not someone else. But that is the most benefit that I can give you as it was clear that you were prepared to play some role and you did know full well what was to happen. This was an horrific attack and you were the one who carried it into fruition, even though you were used by others older than you and no doubt of considerable influence over you.

Given all the circumstances of the offending and your role, the starting point for your offending must also be one of 18 years’ imprisonment. But I wish to take into account your tender age, your upbringing and the circumstances of the offending on the day in question when left to carry out an attack without warning, and your attempt to avoid throwing the acid in Miss Tam’s face. For that, I will discount that starting point by 2 years.

Not only did you plead guilty at the first opportunity but you made two witness statements and have given evidence against Ng Yan-lok who would not have been brought to justice without you. Because of the danger you have placed yourself in by doing that, you have not had the benefit of incarceration in Lai Chi Kok since 2013 and have been remanded in Pik Uk which is a harsh environment for one so young and of previous good character.

You will receive a 50 per cent discount on that sentence and you will go to prison for 8 years.