HKSAR v. Cheung Man Kong

HCCC 221/2021 [2024] HKCFI 420 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CRIMINAL CASE NO 221 OF 2021 ________________________   HKSAR     v     Cheung Man-kong   ________________________ Before:  Hon Johnny Chan J Date:  24 January 2024 at 10.00 am Present:  Ms Juliana Chow, counsel-on-fiat, instructed by the Department for Justice, for HKSAR   Mr Ian Polson and Mr Edmond Wong, instructed by Messrs GT Lawyers (assigned by DLA), for the accused

Offence:	(1) Murder (謀殺)
	(2) Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (襲擊他人致造成身體傷害)

______________________________________

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

______________________________________

COURT: You told the police in your video-recorded interview that when the deceased, Lee Wing-ho, saw you at the ATM centre on his fateful day, he looked surprised and stunned.

From the evidence of PW1, we know that when you stabbed the head of the deceased with a knife, you uttered “drop dead”. The deceased uttered immediately “Ah Kong, 阿港”, the last words of the deceased before he fell.

The jury by unanimous verdicts convicted you of murder of Lee Wing-ho, Count 1, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm of Lau Po-wing Paul, PW1, Count 2. Both counts took place on 1 September 2020 at the ATM centre of Tseung Kwan O MTR station.

The deceased was a former colleague of the defendant when they worked at the company, Guardforce. Initially, the deceased and the defendant were friends but their good relationship went sour after some unhappy incidents. The defendant left Guardforce in June 2018. He worked as a bus driver at the material time.

On 1 September 2020, after the defendant finished work at around 2.30 pm, he returned home, changed, wore a cap and left home with a backpack carrying the knife. He told the police that he changed his outfit because he did not want to be recognised by people.

At the time of the incident, the deceased and PW1 were employees of Guardforce carrying out maintenance and repair works of the ATM at the said ATM centre.

At the material time, the defendant entered the ATM centre and attacked the deceased with a knife which he bought on 30 August 2020. PW1 tried to stop the defendant and the two struggled. The knife dropped onto the ground. The defendant fled.

He told the police in his video-recorded interview that he bought the knife because he wanted to teach the deceased a lesson. As said, after the defendant knifed the deceased, he fled but shortly afterwards he returned and kicked the head of the deceased violently.

PW1 struggled with the defendant, the defendant attacked PW1 with his fists. The assault had caused a minor injury to PW1’s eyelid. What the defendant did at the ATM centre was captured by the CCTV installed.

Two days before the incident on 30 August 2020, the defendant met the deceased by chance in Mong Kok. The deceased was then on board a vehicle of Guardforce. The defendant became very angry on seeing the deceased, he shouted at the deceased. The deceased did not do or say anything.

In the evening on 30 August 2020, the defendant went to the entrance of Guardforce to wait for the deceased with the knife he just bought. He did not attack the deceased because the deceased was then accompanied by some colleagues.

There is evidence from two psychiatrists, DW2 and DW3 that the defendant was likely to have borderline personality disorder at the time of the offence. The jury by the verdict, rejected the defence of diminished responsibility put forward by the defence and the defence of provocation that I asked them to consider.

The defendant was convicted of AOABH, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, in a case took place in December 2018 after the defendant had left Guardforce. He was then working as a driver for a flower shop. For his previous conviction, he was put on a community service order.

The defendant is aged 33. Born in Hong Kong, he is single. He completed Form 5 education in Hong Kong and finished a Yi Jin Diploma course. He resided with his mother and younger brother at a public housing estate before his remand.

I have before me copies of awards and certificates issued to the defendant for the courses he completed during his remand, items 1 to 3 of the mitigation bundle, a certificate of the “Silent Teacher” Body Donation Program issued by the Chinese University of Hong Kong, item 4 of the mitigation bundle.

I have five mitigation letters written by:

(1)  The defendant, item 5;

(2)  Ms Tsui, a former secondary school teacher of the defendant, item 6;

(3)  Mr Wong, the former Deputy Head Coach of the Hong Kong Rope Skipping Team and former coach of the defendant in rope skipping, item 7;

(4)  Mr Hui, a preacher of a Christian church, item 8; and

(5)  Mr Li, retired Professor of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, item 9.

I have read all the materials in the mitigation bundle. Given the verdict of the jury, I reject what the defendant claimed in his mitigation letter about the effects of his physical condition and mental illness had on him at the time of the offence.

Given what the defendant did in this case, the verdict of the jury and the previous criminal record of the defendant, I reject Ms Tsui’s statement that, “He is never a person who wants to harm others.” That is item 6.

I do not accept the statement by Mr Wong that, “We believe that he, that is the defendant, was forced into this inappropriate and unwise act in the heat of the moment. We believed this is just an isolated incident.” Item 7.

I do not accept the statement by Mr Hui that the present case, “is really an unfortunate isolated incident.” Item 8.

For the 1^st count, the defendant attacked the deceased viciously with a knife that he bought two days before. One of the cut wounds, the cut wound to the trunk of the deceased was about 10.6 cm deep.

In the previous incident of assault, the deceased did not press for criminal prosecution against the defendant. The charge was dropped.

The only appropriate sentence for the 1^st count is life imprisonment. In fact, life imprisonment is the mandatory sentence for murder.

For the 2^nd count, the defendant committed a similar offence in December 2018 for which he was placed under a community service order. Given the background of the defendant and given what happened at the time as revealed by the CCTV, including the way PW1 was assaulted and the injury he suffered, an immediate term of 6 months’ imprisonment is appropriate.

On the 1^st count of murder, I sentence the defendant to life imprisonment.

On the 2^nd count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, I sentence the defendant to 6 months’ imprisonment, the sentence is to run concurrently with his sentence for the 1^st count.