HKSAR v. Maninder Singh and Another

DCCC 564/2025

[2026] HKDC 1620

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 564 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.D1 and D2 were jointly charged with one count of robbery[1] (“Charge 1”). They pleaded not guilty to the charge.

2.Prosecution called Mr. Kumar, PW1, who was the alleged victim.  After he testified, prosecution offered no further evidence of the case.  Prosecution also submitted an alternative charge of common assault against D1[2] (“Charge 2”)  only. The particulars of Charge 2 alleged that D1 alone assaulted PW1 on 22 April 2024. 

3.Counsel for D2 made a no case submission and Prosecution did not contest.  As there is no evidence, either the viva voce evidence of PW1 or the CCTV footage played during the testimony of PW1, that D2 had joined or participated in the alleged robbery or the assault of PW1 (which is the statutory alternative of Charge 1), I find that D2 has no case to answer on Charge 1 and he is acquitted of the charge.

4.D1 pleaded guilty to the Charge 2 and admitted the facts.  D1 is convicted of the alternative charge accordingly. 

Facts

5.On 22 April 2024 at around 00:08, PW1 while walking past near 473 Shanghai Street, he encountered a group of people and had a fight with them. 

6.1 minute later, when D1 arrived at the same location, he witnessed the fight but did not intervene, until he saw PW1 stroke his friend.  He then punched and kicked PW1.

7.D1 was arrested by police on the same day and a cautioned video recorded interview was conducted.  D1 said in the VRI that he was heavily intoxicated at that night and did not remember anything at all.

Personal circumstances and mitigation

8.D1 is 32 years old.  He was born in India and completed his Grade 8 education in Panjab.  His father and mother are currently living in India.

9.D1 came to Hong Kong in 2013 and filed his non-refoulement claim.  It is submitted that application is still underway. 

10.As for D1’s criminal record, he was convicted of an immigration offence in 2016 and sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment.

11.Counsel for D1, Mr. Marwah, said that D1 was celebrating his birthday with his friends in Wong Tai Sin on the evening of 21 April 2024.  At around midnight of that day, D1 and his friends began walking towards D1’s home.  It was submitted that D1 was heavily drunk at that time and eventually fell behind his friends when they were walking towards Shanghai Street.  D1 arrived at the scene at a later stage, when the fight had already started.  Mr. Marwah contended that most of the injuries that PW1 had suffered should not be attributed to D1’s culpability because D1 was not jointly charged with other assailants who fought with PW1 before D1 arrived. 

12.Mr. Marwah accepted that D1’s status as a Form 8 holder amounts to an aggravating factor, however, the assault perpetrated by D1 was at the lowest end of the scale as there was no-premeditation on the part of D1 and no weapon was used, given the basis of Charge 2 as put forward by Prosecution against D1 was not a joint enterprise charge.

13.Regarding sentence, Mr. Marwah referred to the case of HKSAR v. Leung Chiu Ngai[3] and HKSAR v. Chun Shing Ngan[4] and submitted that a financial penalty is sufficient to reflect D1’s culpability.  It is further submitted that even though D1’s raised the offer to the Prosecution that D1 would plead guilty to common assault before the trial started, D1 should still be entitled to a discount as stated in HKSAR v. Husnain Safdar[5] at para. 117.

Reasons for sentence

14.There is no sentencing tariff for the offence of common assault.   The maximum sentence is 1 year imprisonment. 

15.Although D1 was not jointly charged with others, he should have realized PW1 was fighting with a group of people when he arrived at the scene.   The offence took place at small hours in the street.  Although D1’s assault against PW1 was not a result of the common design with other assailants, I do not agree with Mr. Marwah’s submission that D1’s culpability was at the lowest end of the spectrum.  Having said that, I bear in mind that the prosecution basis against D1 in respect of Charge 2 was that PW1 was fighting with others in public place and D1 committed the offence when he witnessed his friend being assaulted by PW1. 

16.Having considered all the circumstances and the submissions by D1’s counsel, I am of the view that a financial penalty is sufficient.  I will take a starting point of HK$1,500. Even D1 only indicated his willingness to plead guilty to the alternative charge before trial, I considered that D1 is entitled to some discount.  I am of the view that a 20 percent discount is warranted. 

17.D1 is sentenced to a fine of HK$1,200.