HKSAR v. Amandip Singh

DCCC 89 & 525/2016 (CONS)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 89 & 525 OF 2016 (CONSOLIDATED)

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to Charges 1, 2 and 3. They are all section 17 wounding offences involving three victims. PW8, PW7, PW9 were the victims of Charges 1, 2 and 3 respectively. They were all Indian men. These offences occurred on 21 September 2015, at about 6.30 on the Jordan MTR Station platform.

2.I will not repeat all the facts here.  I, however, will repeat what the 4th defendant agreed in his statement of facts.  He agreed that the attack on the victims was sudden and knives were used.  During the trial, I heard from the victims that they were a group of about five to six men when a group of 9 to 10 men attacked them.  According to the 4th defendant’s mitigation, the 1st and 2nd defendants were with him and committed the offences with him but he is sure the 3rd defendant was not.

3.PW7, according to the other victims, was chopped first by the 4th defendant.  PW7 was hit above the ear and required stitches.  PW8 was subsequently chopped on his head, forehead and arm.  PW9 suffered a wound, a long wound under his left armpit.  This attack would have been very chaotic.  From the photos, there was blood over several areas on the platform.  The victims say they fainted after being injured.  Luckily, nobody other than those victims, I mean by that members of the public, were injured. That is especially bearing in mind that the Jordan MTR platform at 6.30 pm on any day would be very busy, but it must have been frightening to witness such a frenzied attack especially if witnessed by young people or children.

4.Apparently, there were grudges between the 4th defendant and the victims.  This should not have been played out on the MTR platform with weapons that were concealed but then wielded.  This is totally unacceptable in a civilised society such as ours and a religiously tolerant society such as ours.

5.The 4th defendant surrendered himself not long after this incident, in October.  He has been in custody ever since.  He made a statement under caution.  He does admit the attacks but suggests that it was in self-defence.  He told the police that in fact the victims wielded knives and that he took one knife from a victim and chopped him.  He said that only the victims’ party had weapons.  He now admits that is not the truth.  I will come to that.

6.Whilst in custody, he offered to be a prosecution witness.  The police took two non-prejudicial statements from him. He told the police that the 1st and 2nd defendants also attacked the victims, but he said that he was sure the 3rd defendant was not present.

7.The prosecution did not take up the 4th defendant’s offer, but it is submitted in mitigation that his offer was genuine and should not be ignored.  One thing is for certain.  His friends - the 1st and the 2nd defendants - now know he was prepared to implicate them and give evidence against them.

8.The 4th defendant’s intention to plead guilty was made known early on, not just before trial.  Mrs Panesar has said all she can on his behalf in mitigation.  His best mitigation is his plea of guilty.  I have been told that he came to Hong Kong from India in 2012, claiming asylum.  He has been allowed to remain in Hong Kong whilst his claim is processed.  Since he has arrived in Hong Kong, he has maintained a clear record.  He is now 30 years old, and all his family are in Punjab in India. 

9.By way of an explanation, I have been told there is a history of bad blood between the 4th defendant and PW8.  The 4th defendant’s sister married a Christian instead of following the tradition of an arranged marriage.  There is clearly zero religious tolerance in the defendant’s community.  His family were appalled and tried to force her to divorce her husband.  At that time the 4th defendant was in the Oman, he came home and also tried to persuade her to divorce her husband.  PW8 was a friend of her Christian husband.  This escalated into a dispute, and the 4th defendant says he was attacked at home by PW8 and others.  He felt that his life was under threat and he fled to Hong Kong.

10.However, PW8 also came to Hong Kong to seek asylum, and they met each other here.  The 4th defendant has said the bad blood continues and there have been several incidents since arriving here.  He says he has been attacked on at least two occasions by PW8 and others, including PW7 and 9.  Not long before the MTR attack, he was verbally threatened over the telephone by PW8 and PW9.  The 4th defendant decided to arm himself with a knife in case he needed to defend himself against PW8 and his friends.

11.On 21 September, he was with others and on his way home by MTR when he met the victims and others on the platform.  He said that they verbally abused him and his friends.  He felt threatened and thought he saw a knife held by one of them.  Apparently, so did the 2nd defendant.  So they then got out their own weapons and attacked the victims.

12.I did say in my verdict that there was more to it than this attack being apparently motiveless according to the prosecution witnesses.  The 4th defendant now sheds some light as to the relationship between some of the parties.  I did doubt that the victims were in the dark as to the motive of the attack or the identities of the parties.

13.Mrs Panesar can only put it as its highest when she says that the 4th defendant had lived in fear for some time of an attack to explain his reasons for carrying a weapon.  However, the law is clear.  No one can take the law into his own hands.  No one can carry dangerous weapons just in case they are attacked.

14.Despite the bad history between the parties that has been set out before me, I do not believe that the victims carried or displayed any knives, causing the 4th defendant to act in self-defence.  I do not accept that he even had reasonable grounds to believe he was about to be attacked whilst surrounded by friends and the public on an MTR platform.

15.I have had in mitigation letters from the defendant. It expresses his remorse and asks for leniency.  There is also a letter handed to me by the defendant from PW9 who accepts an apology from the 4th defendant and asks for leniency on his behalf.  The defence also say that the 4th defendant has in the past been given letters of appreciation by the police.  He recalls on three separate occasions he handed in lost property to a police station, and his actions were commended.  The defence stress that the 4th defendant is not a hardened criminal but was a man living in fear who rather foolishly took matters into his own hands.

16.There are no tariffs for offences of this nature.  Sentences can range from between 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment. Each case will be considered separately to their own facts.  Sentencing is case-specific.

17.Defendant, please stand up.  I have taken everything said in mitigation into account.  I have also taken into account your intention to give evidence if accepted by the prosecution as a prosecution witness.  It was a genuine intention.  Lastly, I take into account your plea and your surrender to the police not long after the offence.  However, the reason behind the bad blood should never have migrated to Hong Kong and been played out here.

18.I also have to take into account factors which can only be described as aggravating, and I cannot ignore them, and they include the fact this attack was in a very public place during a very busy time at Jordan MTR.  Moreover, this attack was by a group of men, and at least three choppers or knives were carried and then used.  Lastly, the injuries suffered by the victims were very serious.  The attacks were on vulnerable areas of their body, including their heads, arms and chests.  I have to balance those aggravating factors against the mitigation I have heard.

19.After that exercise, I will take a starting point for each charge of 5 years and 6 months.  You have pleaded guilty. You are entitled to a discount of one-third.  That is a discount of 22 months. I intend to give you a further discount of 8 months for your genuine intention and wish to give evidence for the prosecution.  The courts have always said it should always be encouraged, but I can understand here why prosecution decided against taking you up on your offer.  Nevertheless, the intention was there and I should not ignore it.

20.After that further discount is applied, the sentence is reduced to one of 3 years for each charge.  I will order all three sentences to be served concurrently.  Therefore, the total sentence is one of 3 years’ imprisonment.