HKSAR v. Wong Wing Kit

HCCC 39/2024

[2026] HKCFI 3875

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 39 OF 2024

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: D2 was found guilty by a jury of one count of manslaughter, two counts of wounding with intent and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

In the small hours on 6 October 2020, verbal disputes between the bouncers and customers of one N1 Bar at Austin Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, erupted into physical pushing and shoving. The bouncers and customers belonged to the 14K and Wo Shing Wo, two triad societies, respectively. One of the bosses, a Wo Shing Wo member, called for reinforcement.

After their arrival, the dispute quickly escalated into objects being thrown. CCTV installed at the bar captured the number of the Wo Shing Wo arrivals and their aggressiveness.

Not long after the arrival of the Wo Shing Wo, the customers and the Wo Shing Wo boss decided to come out of their temporary safe sanctuary of one VIP room and attacked the bouncers. CCTV captured the one minute or so attack by the Wo Shing Wo members, which subsequently led to the demise of the deceased.

Shortly before the attack, one could see the two groups were having temporary peace with each other. No doubt fingers were pointing, foul languages and accusations might well have been exchanged. The attack started with a bottle being thrown by a member of the Wo Shing Wo. Then other members of Wo Shing Wo charged forward and started to throw objects at the bouncers, including the deceased, both from in and out of the bar table area. Among all the objects thrown, one wine bottle hit the forehead of the deceased and he instantly collapsed.

The wine bottle caused a depressed fractured skull with multiple skull fragments. In other words, the throw was a forceful one. The attack, however, did not stop.

After the collapse of the deceased, Chan Ching-hei, that is D1, and Wong Wing-kit, that is D2, continued their attack on the deceased. Both of them used seemingly beer jars in attacking the deceased, who was still alive at the time.

Having listened to the evidence by the forensic pathologist, this court has little doubt that at the time the deceased collapsed and the attack by both Chan Ching-hei and D2, he was still alive. The subsequent attack by Chan Ching-hei and D2 on the deceased repeatedly and forcefully pointed to the fact that both of them indeed wanted to inflict very serious harms on the deceased.

The group attack on the bouncers continues as the latter managed to escape to the big room. Again, from CCTV footage, one could see the aggressiveness of the Wo Shing Wo members. The bouncers were outnumbered and retreated to the end of the big room. They were primarily trying to fend off the attack.

Inside the big room, one of the bouncers, PW1, Wan Siu-lung, was hit on many different parts of his body, in particular on the forehead and his eye. He soon collapsed onto a sofa. The other two bouncers suffered less serious injuries.

After the attack at the big room, the group of Wo Shing Wo left. However, outside the main entrance of the bar, they decided to return to the bar and mounted another attack.

The injuries of the deceased and the other three bouncers, Wan Siu-lung, Cai Liang and Fung Biu-nam, could be found at their medical and autopsy reports.

Before the attack on the deceased, one could see from the CCTV footage that the deceased appeared to be healthy and did not suffer from any significant injuries on his body. Yet after the attack and his death, the autopsy report indicated that 34 external injuries had been inflicted on his head, neck and trunk. Another 11 injuries on the upper limbs were found to be defensive injuries.

Apart from the fatal injury on the forehead, Dr Kwok, the forensic pathologist, further stated that the external injury number 34 also caused subcapsular haematoma of the spleen, a serious injury according to her. This serious injury was caused by the blunt impact of beer jar. In short, the deceased received serious injuries during the less than one minute attack.

Insofar as the other three victims were concerned, their injuries could be seen from photographs taken by police. Among the three, PW1, that’s Wan Siu-lung, suffered the most serious injuries. According to him, he received seven stitches on his forehead. He only had 10 per cent of vision after the attack; tissues inside his eyes were torn. When he testified in court five years later, he told us that his vision was still blurred.

D2 is now 28, educated up to Form 1 level. He has one trafficking in a dangerous drug in the past.

COURT: I have read the mitigation letter written by D2. Well, understandably, he regretted for his wrongdoing and he essentially pleaded for leniency from this court.

It was held in R v Ko Kam Hung [1991] 2 HKLR 433 that because of the infinite variety of ways in which manslaughter could be committed, it was not possible to suggest guidelines tariff for sentence; there ought to be some internal consistency of sentence so that those guilty of manslaughter in broadly comparable circumstances received broadly comparable sentences.

It was further held that a sentence of 8 years would be an appropriate base for considering the case of anyone, whether armed or not, who took part in a gang attack with others, some or all of whom carried weapons such as wooden poles or water pipes, and from which death ensued.

In Ko Kam Hung, the accused had pleaded not guilty to murder, but guilty to manslaughter. He also pleaded guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm of the deceased arising out of the same incident. He was sentenced to 8 years for manslaughter and 1 year for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The accused was 19 at the time, of clear record. No conventional weapons were used and there were no triad overtones, and the incident arose from a verbal dispute of a trivial nature.

In that case, although the starting point was not mentioned, the notional starting point could be inferred to be one of 12 years’ imprisonment.

In the present case, although conventional weapons such as choppers, machetes, water pipes were not used, weapons in the form of wine bottle, jugs, metal stools, or indeed any objects that the group of Wo Shing Wo, including the defendant, could get hold to attack were employed. The whisky bottle with its thick glass container was no less lethal than a heavy hammer. The attack on the deceased involved a large number of Wo Shing Wo triad members. Triad element was prominently featured in this case.

Both Chan Ching-hei and D2 joined in the attack of the deceased behind the bar table from the very beginning to the very end. Both of them continued their attacks even after the collapse of an unresponsive and defenceless human being.

Again, adopting what was described in Ko Kam Hung, this was an attack on the borderline of murderous intent. The attack on the deceased was deliberate, given the temporary peace preceding the attack. The external and internal injuries caused to the abdomen/spleen after the collapse of the deceased were very serious.

In view of all that, a notional starting point of 13 years and 6 months will be adopted. For the defendant, D2, although he indicated his plea to manslaughter at the committal stage, that fact was deliberately concealed from the jury. The defendant then mounted a number of complete defences during the trial. They were, namely, (1) self-defence; (2) not being a party to the joint enterprise; and (3) not having the intention to cause grievous bodily harm to the deceased.

The defendant hoped, but failed to achieve a complete acquittal. Submissions on sentence regarding discount were called for.

After a careful consideration of all the authorities, in particular HKSAR v Lam Kai Man [2020] 4 HKLRD 107 and HKSAR v Sze Kwan Lung and Others, CACC 92/2002 and FAMC 1 and 2 of 2004, this court is of the view that except the defence of having no intention to cause grievous bodily harm, the other two defences run by the defendant during the trial were not consistent with the stated position for the remainder of the proceedings as stipulated in the holding of Lam Kai Man.

After a careful consideration, this court is of the view that the defendant, D2, is only entitled to a 16 per cent discount, a discount slightly over the discount given in the case of Sze Kwan Lung. As such, he is sentenced to 11 years and 4 months for the manslaughter charge.

As for the two counts of wounding with intent, the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Ma Tik Lun Dicky [2015] 1 HKLRD 380 reiterated the sentencing considerations for wounding with intent at paragraph 40 of the judgment, to which I am not going to repeat.

The attack on the bouncers in this case was premeditated as reinforcements were called for by the boss, by the Wo Shing Wo boss. The precise motivation was not known, but no doubt something to do with the displeasure the boss and his fellow members received at the N1 Bar and to show force. At the time of the attack, at the big room, members of the Wo Shing Wo, Mr Chan Ching-hei and the defendant amongst the others, were acting violently and aggressively. It was a group attack on the bouncers with objects being thrown, be they stools, chairs, bottles, hard objects. Photographs depicted their injuries. For PW1, Wan Siu-lung, he still suffers from his eye injuries as of today.

Given the triad element, a starting point of 4 years will be adopted for each of the wounding with intent charges. The defendant was convicted after trial, no discount will be given.

As for the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, given the slightly less serious nature of the injury, a starting point of 18 months will be adopted. D2 is convicted after trial; no discount will be given.

After a careful consideration of the overall criminality and the totality principle, 12 months each of the two wounding with intent charges is ordered to run consecutively to the sentence imposed on the manslaughter charge, thus making a total of 13 years and 4 months for the defendant.

As for the assault occasioning actual bodily harm charge, the defendant will serve an additional 6 months. Well, put it this way: an additional 6 months will be imposed consecutively to all the sentences imposed on all other charges.

In conclusion, D2 will serve a total of 13 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.