HKSAR v. Li Siu Ki

HCCC 197/2025

[2026] HKCFI 2997

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 197 OF 2025

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty on 5 June 2025 to a charge of section 17 wounding with intent, contrary to the Offences Against the Persons Ordinance, Chapter 221, before a magistrate. He has been committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence.

In the charge of wounding, the defendant admitted that on 15 February 2023, outside No 72 Hill Road, Sai Ying Pun, Hong Kong, together with Chan Kwok-kin and other persons unknown, unlawfully and maliciously wounded Wong Ho-ting with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

In regard to the Summary of Facts, which are in support of this charge, they are as follows. On 15 February 2023, the victim, Mr Wong, a 31-year-old male, met up with three friends for dinner. They went to dinner together and the victim parked his car outside No 70 Hill Road at around 2042 hours. After dinner, the victim and his friends returned to the car at about 2315 hours. The victim went to place something in his car whilst his friends were smoking nearby.

A vehicle with the defendant and other males stopped nearby and about three to four males holding knives and an axe got off the vehicle and dashed towards the victim. I shall call this vehicle “the assailant’s vehicle”. One of the males pointed a knife at the victim’s friends and told them not to move. The victim attempted to run away but was chopped by the assailants on his back and limbs. After about 20 seconds, the assailants returned to the assailant’s vehicle and fled the scene.

A report was made to the police and the victim was conveyed to Queen Mary Hospital.

Upon checking CCTV, the police were able to identify the assailant’s vehicle and a scout vehicle. The CCTV footage showed that at about 1820 hours the scout vehicle, being a seven-seater black vehicle with licence plate VR3234, followed the victim’s car when he drove it from Kau Tau Shan in Sha Tin through the Western Tunnel to Central until the victim’s car arrived at a residence at Kotewall Road at 1950 hours.

The victim then drove another vehicle and parked it at 72 Hill Road at 2042 hours. At about 2130 hours, this scout vehicle then parked 30 metres behind the victim’s vehicle on Hill Road. At 2142 hours, the assailant’s vehicle arrived at Hill Road and parked at Po Tuck Street near the offence location.

Between 2321 hours and 2322 hours, three assailants alighted from the assailant’s vehicle and chopped the victim. They then returned to the assailant’s vehicle and drove away. At about the same time, the scout vehicle left Hill Road. Both the scout vehicle and the assailant’s vehicle passed through the Western Harbour Tunnel within three minutes of each other. They both then passed through Tai Lam Tunnel within nine minutes of each other and fled towards Yuen Long.

The scout vehicle was located by the police at a second-hand showroom in Yuen Long and the manager of the showroom stated that he had bought the vehicle on 25 February 2023 from a male called Leung Yuen-hing.

Upon investigation, the licence plate of the assailant’s vehicle was found to be false and belonged to another car. The assailant’s vehicle was never found.

On 15 March 2023, the defendant was arrested and under caution he said, “I was there at Hill Road that night, but I did not chop anyone.”

The victim believes that the reason for his attack was as a result of a dispute and allegations that he made against his ex-wife. It is clear from the additional Summary of Facts that the victim and his ex-wife divorced in 2019 as a result of his allegations that she was having affairs. In late 2022, the ex-wife asked the victim for more alimony but was rejected by the victim. They then had a dispute.

In December 2022, the victim vilified his ex-wife as a cheating wife and posted on his Instagram post intimate photographs and WhatsApp conversations she had with another man. This other man, who was believed to be her boyfriend, was irritated and left threatening comments on the victim’s Instagram account alluding to him that he would take revenge on behalf of the ex-wife. The victim therefore believed that the reason of his attack was related to the dispute amongst him, his ex-wife and the ex-wife’s boyfriend.

After the attack on 15 February 2023, the police arrested both the ex-wife and her boyfriend for this offence of wounding. They were however released upon legal advice.

I turn now to the mitigation. Mr Leslie Pang, counsel for the defendant, mitigated on his behalf. The defendant is now 36 years of age and he was 32 years of age when this offence took place. He is single, and born and raised in Hong Kong. He received and completed up to secondary Form 4 education. The defendant lived with his parents, who are aged 73 and 69 respectively, and an elder brother. The defendant earned about to $16,000 per month as a transportation worker at the time of his arrest.

The defendant has seven previous convictions, one which is related to violence in 2006 when he was 16 years old. He was sentenced to probation for 18 months.

In respect of the reasons for committing this offence, the defendant admits he foolishly committed this offence under the influence of his friend. It is his submission that he was not the mastermind or ringleader. There is no suggestion that he took part in the pre-planning and he was not the attacker. He merely agreed to act as a lookout and to tell the victim’s friends not to get involved. He, however, admits that he took part in this joint enterprise.

I turn now to the discussion. There are no tariffs for this offence and the sentences are case-specific and fact-specific. It was stated by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Roka Sijan [2018] HKCA 986 at paragraph 52.

“Whilst there are no sentencing guidelines for wounding, it has been said the usual range of sentences will be between 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment, although this will very much depend on the particular circumstances of each case.”

It then quoted a number of cases and went on to say,

“However, we would say that in very serious cases of wounding, a sentence outside this range will be warranted.”

The court also set out the factors to be taken into consideration for sentencing for the offence of wounding with intent at paragraph 53. It went on to say,

“Key factors in determining the appropriate level of sentence for the offence of wounding, include the nature and circumstances of the assault, the use of a weapon and the circumstances of its use, the defenceless state of the victim, and the nature and effect of the injuries suffered by the victim.”

In HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [2013] 6 HKC 225, the Court of Appeal also set out factors to be taken into consideration for sentencing in wounding with intent at paragraph 49. It said,

“Consequently, many of the factors to which a court will have regard in determining the gravity of a section 17 offence and the culpability of the offender will relate to the type of harm intended to be inflicted, the means by which that harm was inflicted and the circumstances generally surrounding the assault. Thus, without attending to exclusively identify all the relevant factors, the usual ones will be the extent to which the assault was premeditated, the reasons or motivation underlying the assault upon the victim, the mental or emotional state of the assailant at the time of the assault, whether alcohol or drugs contributed to the actions of the assailant, whether the assault was committed by the assailant alone or as part of a group, the type of weapons employed, the level of force or aggression and the persistence with which the assault was pressed home, the injuries caused to the victim and the effect of the assault upon the victim and those close to him or her.”

This was a brutal, vicious, sudden and unprovoked attack on the victim who was unarmed and defenceless. The victim was attacked by three or four assailants using knives and an axe, causing serious injuries.

The defendant’s role in this case was pointing a knife at the victim’s three friends, telling them not to move and interfere whilst the victim was being attacked. It was committed on a road, in public, outside a residential area at about 11.15 pm. The attack was captured on CCTV camera showing the defendant near the assailant’s vehicle.

This was a well-planned and premeditated attack on the victim by a group of males armed with knives and an axe. The victim’s car and the victim had been followed from the time he left Kau Tau Shan in the late afternoon by the scout vehicle. The assailant’s vehicle and the scout’s vehicle were parked nearby to the victim’s car, waiting for the victim to return to the car after they had finished their meal. Sorry, I should say the victim and his friends after they had finished their meal. The armed assailants, including the defendant, were waiting to attack the victim. The assailant’s vehicle’s licence plate was false. The vehicle was never recovered or found.

The defendant’s friend had arranged to meet him a few hours before the attack. The defendant met his friend and an unknown male. The three of them then boarded the assailant’s vehicle driven by an unknown male. Upon boarding the vehicle, the defendant noticed knives and an axe underneath the carpet of the vehicle. The unknown male showed the defendant a photo of the victim and said they were going to chop the victim. It was then the defendant said he realised they were going to chop someone.

When they arrived at the location, his friend and the unknown male alighted from the assailant’s vehicle whilst the driver remained inside. His friend and an unknown male used a knife and axe to chop the victim while he held the knife to threaten the victim’s friends and told them not to interfere.

The defendant’s role was to prevent the friends from assisting the victim. His role was to allow his friend and the other male to brutally and viciously attack the victim. After about a minute, they boarded the assailant’s vehicle and drove away.

After they fled, they went through the Western Tunnel. The defendant said his friend and the unknown male and him were dropped off near Olympian City. The defendant said he left the knife in the vehicle. He then left the other two and went to dinner.

In this case, the victim was seriously injured. He suffered multiple lacerations on his right hand, his back, his left and right lower limbs.

As reflected in the Summary of Facts, the victim was admitted into Queen Mary Hospital and emergency surgery was performed on him on 16 February, the following day. He was discharged on 20 February 2023 and sought further management at the Union Hospital.

Dr Lee Wai-keung Edison of the Union Hospital stated the following in his medical report dated 20 July 2023. It stated, inter alia: (1) the trunk wounds were well cared of and subsequently healed with surgical scarring, but no major functional disability; (2) the wound to the victim’s left leg had affected his control of his ankle. Dorsiflexion surgery and rehabilitation was required; (3) the wound on the victim’s right hand was very severe. It resulted in multiple bone fractures and major hand tendon injuries; (4) multiple surgeries, even until July 2023, were required to the victim’s right hand, which included bone repair by screw fixation, multiple tendon repair, manipulation and tenolysis to release adhesion; (5) the victim is still undergoing intensive rehabilitation to increase active and passive motions to his right hand and left ankle; (6) permanent scarring and disability is anticipated; (7) the victim’s condition is not static and a long period of supervision and treatment shall be required.

These serious injuries sustained by the victim will have a lasting effect on his future and quality of life. He still needs treatment and rehabilitation. The actual reason for the attack on the victim is unknown. The violence against the victim and the intention to inflict these very serious injuries on the victim warrants a severe deterrent sentence.

Defendant, your role in this joint enterprise cannot be distinguished from the males that physically attacked the victim. Having regard to the relevant factors in this case, had you, the defendant, been convicted after trial, I would have considered an appropriate starting point to be one of 12 years’ imprisonment. The only and greatest mitigating factor is your plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity, and for that, the defendant, you will receive a full one-third discount.

In the circumstances, defendant, you are sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment. You may be seated.