HKSAR v. Yeung Chun Pong Andrew and Others

HCCC 40/2024

[2026] HKCFI 3877

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 40 OF 2024

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: D1, D2, D4, D5, D6, D7 have pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter, one count of inflicting grievous bodily harm, one count of wounding, and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. They have been committed to this court for sentence.

In the small hours on the 6 October 2020, verbal disputes between the bouncers and the customers of one N1 Bar at Austin Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, erupted into physical pushing and shoving. The bouncers and customers belonged to 14K and Wo Shing Wo, two triad societies respectively. One of the bosses, D2, called for reinforcement.

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

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 attack 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 accusation might well have been exchanged. The attack started with a bottle being thrown by a member of Wo Shing Wo. Then other members of the 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.

One could see from the autopsy report that the wine bottle caused a depressed fractured scalp with multiple scalp 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 and Wong Wing-kit continued their attack on the deceased. Both of them use seemingly beer jugs in attacking the deceased who was still alive at the time.

The subsequent attack by Chan Ching-hei and Wong Wing-kit 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 continued as the latter managed to escape to the big room. Again, from the 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, Wan Siu-lung, was hit among different parts of his body, on his forehead and 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 out from 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 external injuries on 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 the subcapsular hematoma 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 the photographs taken by the police shortly after.

Among the three, PW1, Wan Siu-lung, suffered the most serious injuries. He received seven stitches on his forehead. He had only 10 per cent of his 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.

D1, Yeung Chun-pong Andrew, is now 46, educated up to Form 2 level, married with two children and selling fresh fish for a living. He has two criminal records, one involving the use of violence.

Most of the mitigation put forward by Mr Donald on behalf of Mr Yeung was rejected on the last occasion, as they were found to be inconsistent with the facts admitted by Mr Yeung.

D2, Tse Chin-chung, is now aged 35, educated up to Form 3 level, single but has a daughter, a businessman. He has four criminal records, none involving violence.

D4, Yeung Cheuk-hei, is now aged 29, educated up to Form 6 level, single, a transportation worker. He has a clear record.

D5, Choi Man-lung, is now aged 27, educated up to Form 4 level, single, an air conditioning technician. He has three criminal records, none involving the use of violence.

D6, Wong Long-ki, is now aged 32, educated up to Form 3 level, a pet shop owner. He has six criminal records, three relating to the use of violence.

D7, Hui Yau-him Himmy, is now aged 39, educated up to Form 5 level, a fitness instructor. He has three criminal records, one involving the use of violence.

Mitigation letters from each of the defendants and their family and friends have been produced to this court. They understandably asked for leniency. I understand their wishes. However, I do have a balancing exercise to perform. Hopefully, all of you have by now realised your participation in the night on the 6 October 2020, was one of the most stupid things that you have ever done in your life. It cannot be disputed that your remorse could hardly bring back the life of a human being.

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 tariffs for sentence.

However, it was held that 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 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 ensured.

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, Ko Kam-hung, 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. Although no starting point was specified in that particular case, 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 bottles, jugs, metal stools, or indeed any objects that the group of Wo Shing Wo could get hold of 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.

As stated in paragraph 33 of the Summary of Facts, all defendants accepted and admitted that in joint enterprise with Chan Ching-hei and Wong Wing-kit, they unlawfully killed the deceased by unlawful and dangerous acts as set out in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Summary of Facts. They also admitted in joint enterprise with Chan Ching-hei, Wong Wing-kit, in inflicting grievous bodily harm and assault occasioning actual bodily harm of the three.

Going back to the manslaughter charge, 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.

In view of all that and the case I have just mentioned, a notional starting point of 13 years and 6 months will be adopted. However, it was clear that D2, Tse Chin-chung, was the ringleader and mastermind behind the attack. He was the one blowing the whistle, calling for reinforcement. His culpability was the greatest in this case.

The other defendants admitted that they participated in the attack at various stages on the deceased and other three bouncers. They acted together and supported each other in the attack. Despite of the fact that the extent of violence

used by each of the defendants might be different, their criminal liabilities would be the same.

Insofar as all the defendants except D2 are concerned, the notional starting point for manslaughter will be the same as Chan Ching-hei and Wong Wing-kit, ie 13 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

For D2, given his role, the notional starting point for the manslaughter charge will be adjusted upward to one of 14 years’ imprisonment.

Full one-third discount will be given, as such, D2 will be sentenced to 112 months’ imprisonment, ie 9 years and 4 months, whereas the other defendants will serve a 9-year imprisonment term for the manslaughter charge.

It is also my decision that D7 should not be given any further discount for his surrender to the police. D7 was wanted by the police after the incident. He nevertheless managed to avoid the apprehension of the police for two years till November 2022. Under caution, he did not say anything. No doubt D7 knew that he was wanted after the incident. He decided to flee. It would be wrong for the court to reward a fugitive to flee and to return with additional discount.

As for the inflicting grievous bodily harm and assault occasioning actual bodily harm charges, the attack on the bouncers in this case was premeditated as reinforcements were called for by D2. The precise motivation was not known, but no doubt something to do with the displeasure that D2 and his fellow members of Wo Shing Wo received at the bar and to show force and authority.

At the time of the attack at the big room, members of the Wo Shing Wo were acting aggressively and violently. It was a group attack on the bouncers with objects being thrown, be they stools, chairs, bottles or any hard objects.

Photographs depicted their injuries. For Wan Siu-lung, he still suffers from the eye injury as of today. Insofar as all the other three charges, 24 months each will be adopted as the notional starting point. After a plea, the sentence is reduced to one of 16 months’ imprisonment.

Having considered the overall criminality of the case and the totality principle, it is therefore ordered that 4 months each on these three charges will run consecutively to each other and also consecutively to the sentence imposed on the manslaughter charge, in short, an additional 12 months on top of the sentences imposed on manslaughter.

In conclusion, for all the offences D2 stands convicted, he will serve a total of 10 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

As for other defendants, they will serve a total of 10 years’ imprisonment for all the offences they stand convicted.