HKSAR v. Li Kui To
|
DCCC 439/2025 [2026] HKDC 989 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 439 OF 2025 ------------------------------
------------------------------
--------------------------------------------- REASONS FOR SENTENCE --------------------------------------------- 1.In this case the defendant Li Kui To, is convicted of one count of Wounding with Intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212, Laws of Hong Kong upon his plea and admission of facts. 2.This was a well-planned act of wounding involving three men. The defendant was but one of them. The actual deed was done at about 10 pm on 7 October 2024, but the events leading to it are relevant to my consideration. 3.On the 6th day of October 2024 at about 3.40 am, the defendant drove a vehicle belonging to another defendant (namely “D1” in the Charge) to the victim’s residence in Capital Centre, 151 Gloucester Road, Wan Chai. The CCTV showed the defendant approached the two vehicles (including the one driven by the victim) and placed a tracking device onto both vehicles. 4.On 7 October at 4.50 pm, the victim parked his vehicle the said carpark. At 6.22 pm on the same day, the defendant was seen driving the same vehicle belonging to D1 and stopped at the entrance of the said carpark. D3 was seen to be alighting from the vehicle and entering the carpark before D2 drove off. D3 appeared to be confirming the location of the vehicle driven by the victim after when he left the carpark via a footbridge. 5.At 7.24 pm on the same day, D2 was again driving the same vehicle back to the carpark, parking it close to the victim’s vehicle. At 8.34 pm, D1 alighted from the front passenger seat of the said vehicle and left the carpark via the aforesaid footbridge. He returned at about 9 pm and got back into the vehicle. After about three minutes D1 alighted from the vehicle again. 6.At 9.20 pm, D2 departed from the vehicle and went on to the lift lobby of the carpark where he was seen meeting up with D3. After which he returned to the vehicle with D3 remaining in the lift lobby. At about 9.56 pm, the victim was seen back in the carpark to collect his vehicle. At that point D1 returned to the carpark. 7.As the victim was getting into his vehicle, D3 appeared and opened the driver’s seat of the door and assaulted the victim with D1 looking on. D3 was seen using a blunt object to assault the victim on the head and face. Meanwhile D2 was driving the aforementioned vehicle near the scene of the assault. 8.The assault went on for about a minute. After which D1 and D3 fled the carpark and D2 drove away. 9.As a result of the assault the victim suffered the following injuries:
10.He was treated and discharged on the same day by the hospital. 11.From the facts and the defendant agreed that D2 acted in joint enterprise together with D1 and D3 to wound the victim with the intent. Sentencing considerations 12.The offence warrants a life imprisonment. The culpability of the each case varied as the circumstances of committing the same could be very different. The Court of Appeal has not set out a clear guideline for this kind of offence, but had identified some general guiding principles. In HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat, CACC 317/212 at paragraph 50 and 51, the Court of Appeal set out the sentencing principles, and I quote:
13.Deterrence and denunciation are always important when there is the resort to violence but there may be particular situations that call for greater deterrence such as in triad gang or contract attacks or more denunciatory sentences such as in domestic violence cases. Thus the Court of Appeal has clearly spelled out for offences of this type, the general principle must be deterrence and for that a term of custodial sentence is inevitable. 14.In the particular facts of this case, I agree with the defence that the injury was not the most serious of its kind and, from the recent pictures of the victim, it would not lead to any obvious disfigurement. 15.It has been stated the defendant acted as a watch out, he did not personally assault the victim. I must bear in mind that the three defendants are acting in concert, therefore the fact that he did not reduce his culpability. 16.The defendant didn’t carry out the assault personally but had played a crucial part in the offence. He had driven to locate the victim’s vehicle and put a tracking device on it. Although it is not so apparent in the Admitted Facts, there is not doubt the defendants had planned ahead on what to do on the day the deed was to be done. So the present case is one of a premeditated offence. 17.There is no evidence to show the motivation. It was a concerted act of three persons to assault another with weapon. The victim’s face and hand suffered blunt injuries as a result. Eventually all the wounds healed and did not came any obvious disfigurement on the victim, however, I can imagine the kind of surprise and fear the victim had to undergo when he realised that he was being set on by a number of people. Even assuming I found no motive of the assault, the cold-blooded act of planning and executing an assault would be sufficient for a serious sentence. 18.Having reviewed the facts of the case and having considered the examples of my brothers and sisters in the District Court in their sentences for offences of the similar nature, I found 4 years a proper starting point. It is reduced to 32 months to reflect his guilty plea. Mitigating Factors 19.The defendant is aged 49, a married man, and has a young daughter. He worked as a construction site worker. He has a family (i.e. his wife and a daughter) to take care of. He had 33 previous convictions. Most of those convictions are related to dangerous drugs and traffic offences. The last offence related to violence was in 2006, in which he was convicted of possession of offensive weapon. In 2007, assault occasioning actual bodily harm for which he was given a short sentence. 20.I do not consider his previous convictions relevant to enhance his sentence. On the other hand he is a mature man, and did not have a clear record; there is no reason to exercise clemency. Having considered the matter as a whole I decide that 32 months is an appropriate sentence taking into account all the circumstances. 21.I have also been informed that the defendant was subject to a DATC order. Since it is unrelated to the present one and I do not see any reason why further resources are to be wasted on him in completing the DATC programme, I order that the existing DATC order be discharged and the defendant is to serve the 32 months immediately.
|