COURT: The defendant, Mr Lau Kai-shing (“Mr Lau”) was found guilty unanimously by a jury of one count of conspiracy to throw corrosive fluid with intent to do grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 29(c) of the offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212, and sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance.
His co-conspirator, Mr Lee Wai-chiu (“Mr Lee”), chose to plead guilty to the same charge at the Magistrate’s Court and testified for the prosecution in the trial of Mr Lau.
Evidence in the trial revealed that Mr Lau had grudge/dispute with the owner of a Thai restaurant named Man Kee BBQ Thaifood regarding certain business dealings. The owner of Man Kee refused to permit the defendant to participate in his moneylending business. As a result, Mr Lau hired Mr Lee to throw corrosive fluid not at the owner of Man Kee but whoever happened to be present at the restaurant at the time of the attack. In other words, victims were chosen at random and could have been totally innocent bystanders.
It was not disputed that the restaurant was located near a park across the road. Evidence revealed that both elderly and children were the park’s frequent visitors. That could be seen from the CCTV.
Mr Lee decided to carry out the attack. As matters unfolded, it turned out that the victims were truly innocent people, nothing to do with the grudge or business dealing with the owner or Mr Lau, two Thai ladies and three pedestrians who happened to cross the road and walked past. This, in my view, is a very serious aggravating feature. So, all in all, five people were injured during the course of the attack. On top of that, as I have indicated, two of the innocent passersby or victims happened to be children of very young age.
Photographs produced during the trial depicted the unpleasant and horrible injuries one of the young boys suffered on his legs. Luckily, for the two young boys, the injuries sustained by them were not the most serious one nor were they of any permanent nature. That may well be due to the quick regenerative abilities because of their young age.
The two Thai ladies were less fortunate. Photographs depicting their injuries showed the extent of their sufferings. I am not going to give detailed descriptions of their injuries.
Psychological report indicated that Madam Lee was left with post-traumatic stress disorder and with adjustment difficulties. Her vocational functioning was negatively impaired, which limited her capacity to maintain stable employment. According to the psychology report prepared two years after the incident, she was still struggling with the incident.
Madam Sangthong was suffering from the aftermath of the incident. The injuries on her neck, face, and ear were extensive. According to the psychology report, Madam Sangthong tried to avoid stimuli that would trigger her memories of the incident. She could not let go of the past and started a new life again.
So the psychological impacts caused to the two Thai ladies could not be described as insignificant.
It was held in HKSAR v Lau Ching Him [2017] 3 HKC 410 that, one, this offence attracted the condemnation of the court because the harm caused by the offence could be so horrific with appalling long-term and frequently whole-of-life consequences to the victim. Thus, the court had emphasised the importance of the sentencing principles of the denunciation, deterrence, and punishment. Two, the maximum sentence for the offence was life imprisonment, and this was an indicator of how severe the legislation viewed this conduct.
Similar to the case in Lau Ching Him, the attack carried out by Mr Lee and the plan hatched by Mr Lau, the attack was very much premeditated and was certainly not a spontaneous response to some provocative conducts. It was basically a result of anger/frustration and a desire for revenge.
As for Mr Lee, he agreed to carry out the attack purely to alleviate his financial difficulties at the time. In terms of the execution, the attack was carried out randomly, aimed at totally innocent people. The number of victims in this case was multiple. Five victims sustained injuries in the attack. As mentioned, two were particularly young.
Mr Lau is now age 65, educated up to primary school level. He was a businessman before retirement. He has one minor criminal conviction of gambling.
Mr Lee is now 38, educated up to primary school level, and he has a number of criminal convictions dating back to 1999 when he was only 12. He also has records involving the use of violence. The only mitigating factor in his case is his plea and assistance given to the police. I also note his remorse whilst he was giving evidence, and I also have read his mitigation letter. All right, and he wished to apologise to all the victims in open court.
Having considered all the above, in particular, the number of victims involved, two in their young age, a starting point of 15 years will be adopted.
Mr Lau was convicted after trial. He was the mastermind behind the attack. He orchestrated the whole plan. This court also fails to see any other mitigating circumstances in his case.
Insofar as Mr Lee is concerned, he not only provided statements to the police that led to the apprehension of Mr Lau, but also testified for the prosecution which led to the conviction of Mr Lau. The prosecution would not have a case to go after Mr Lau without his assistance. His evidence in court was direct and straightforward, to the point. As I said, he also admitted his wrong. In view of that, a 50 per cent discount would be given.
For the offence the two defendants are convicted, Mr Lau and Mr Lee are sentenced to 15 years and 7½ years’ imprisonment respectively.
