HKSAR v. Mo Tai Fung

HCCC 199/2026

[2026] HKCFI 5850

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 199 OF 2026

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to the offences of wounding with intent and inhaling a dangerous drug before the magistrate on 28 May this year.

According to the Summary of Facts to which he agreed at the time of his plea, at around 2.21 am on 28 July 2024 the victim, a Mr Pang who was aged 33 at the material time, and a female walked down the staircase of a building at No. 63 Pilkem Street, Yau Ma Tei. As they left the building, the defendant followed them shortly afterwards, and he followed them for about 4 seconds before striking the back of the head of the victim with a small hammer forcefully for 7 times while scolding him.

The victim tried to block the defendant with his hands but was unsuccessful, and he sat on the ground. The defendant struck the victim’s head 4 more times with the hammer while the victim was sitting on the ground. The defendant then walked away and continued scolding the victim from a distance.

The assault lasted for about 20 seconds, and it was captured by CCTV in the vicinity. After the assault the victim was conscious, and he went back to the building at about 2.29 am.

Around 2.40 am on the same day, a friend of the victim found the victim in a flat at the 2nd floor of the building. She noticed blood all over the head and the neck of the victim, and there was a 7-to-8-centimetre laceration on his scalp. For the next 2 to 3 hours, the victim kept inhaling dangerous drug and vaping to alleviate his pain. Around 5.20 am that day, the victim had a seizure and he became unconscious.

Upon the arrival of the ambulancemen, they found the victim unconscious with no breathing or pulse. A wound with dried blood was seen on his scalp and there was no active bleeding. He was certified dead at the hospital upon arrival at 7.22 am on the same day.

Upon autopsy, it was found that the direct cause of death was adverse effect of cocaine and methamphetamine, commonly known as ‘Ice’. The following injuries were also found on the victim:-

(1) There were five lacerations on the upper back of the head involving partial thickness of the scalp which could be compatible with being produced by blunt impact against a hard object. All the lacerations were circular in shape. It was possible that the hard object impacting against the scalp could have curved edges. Autopsy did not reveal any underlying fracture or brain injury to suggest the death was directly caused by the head injury.

(2) There was a bruise on the back of the left elbow and also small lacerations on the back of the left elbow, back of left hand and lower lip. Deep bruises were also found on the back of the left shoulder, right middle front of chest and left upper back of chest of the victim. All these injuries were not considered to be fatal.

The police searched the flat at about 2.04 pm on 28 July 2024. From the main living area they found a total of two inhaling devices containing a liquid which, upon drying, was found to contain a total of 0.09 gramme of a solid containing methamphetamine.

The DNA of the defendant was found on the ends of the straws inserted inside the two inhaling devices seized. The DNA of the victim was found on the bloodstains on the left shoe and the T-shirt of the defendant.

The defendant was arrested by the police on 28 July 2024. He stated under caution that he had only wanted to teach the victim a lesson; he did not intend to kill the victim; and he had disposed of the hammer at the rubbish bin on Pilkem Street.

In the subsequent video-recorded interviews, the defendant stated under caution that:-

- He had acquainted with the victim a few months ago. They would often hang out together at the flat. They had a good relationship and would address each other as brothers.

- Around 10 pm on 27 July 2024 the defendant went to the flat with some other people, and the victim arrived about 30 minutes later. During their chat, the defendant was dissatisfied with the victim who was very cocky and provoked him verbally. The defendant found him very disrespectful and wanted to assault him to teach him a lesson.

- When the defendant was at the flat, a staff there provided some ‘Ice’ and an inhaling device to the defendant for free, and he smoked around 0.4 grammes of ‘Ice’ there.

- About 2 hours later, a female arrived at the flat and the victim left with her to go to Mongkok. The defendant then picked up a hammer from one of the rooms inside the flat and followed them downstairs. He had noticed the hammer inside the flat 2-3 days ago.

- Once downstairs, he struck the victim’s head around 4 times with the hammer while scolding him. He disposed of the hammer at a rubbish bin on Nathan Road near Bowring Street.

The defendant now accepts and admits that at the material time, he had unlawfully and maliciously wounded the victim with intent to do him grievous bodily harm; and he had inhaled methamphetamine hydrochloride on 27 July 2024.

The defendant is now 42 years of age. He has received education up to Form 3 standard. He informed the police that he was unemployed at the time of his arrest, but he had previously worked as a transportation worker and a renovation worker. He is married with no children. His mother works as a cleaning worker and his brother works as an insurance broker. The defendant claimed to have a triad background.

The defendant also has an appalling criminal record. He has convictions for a total of 18 offences including 2 occasions for the offence of wounding with intent; one occasion of section 19 wounding; and one occasion of possession of offensive weapon in a public place.

In respect of the first wounding, that is the section 19 wounding, he was sentenced in May 2007 to a total of 4 months’ imprisonment. In March 2019, he was convicted of the offence of wounding with intent and sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment. In June 2021 he was convicted of wounding with intent again and was sentenced to a total of 44 months’ imprisonment, that is 3 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. So one can see from the sentences that apparently the level of seriousness of the wounding cases was getting higher and higher in respect of his convictions.

In respect of dangerous drug, he also has 4 drug-related convictions including 2 convictions for the offence of possession of dangerous drug, one offence for trafficking in dangerous drug and one offence for possession of pipe or equipment fit and intended for smoking, injecting and inhaling dangerous drug.

The defendant was last sent to prison on 2 June 2021 for the offences of wounding with intent. As I said, on that occasion he was sentenced to 44 months’ imprisonment. He was also convicted of false imprisonment on that particular occasion and again sentenced to 44 months’ concurrent sentence. He was only discharged from prison on 29 July 2023, that was about one year before the occurrence of the present offences.

In mitigation, defence counsel Mr Kelvin Lai informed me that the defendant had been remanded since his arrest. He was married with no children. He was unable to contact his wife since the present offence. He resided at a public housing unit with his elder brother and also his mother who was a part-time cleaner. And the defendant had a habit of consuming ‘Ice’ and cocaine but he had no chronic disease.

Counsel submitted a handwritten letter prepared by the defendant. In that letter the defendant stated that he understood that drugs had caused him great harm and led to this very serious incident. Drugs had also caused him to make many mistakes throughout his life, and he told the court that he had decided to give up drugs and not to resort to violence in dealing with any matters in the future. He said this matter had caused him to lose his wife, and he was now unable to be in contact with her. He said his mother was elderly, and he wished to be released as soon as possible so that he could support his mother. He asked this court to pass a lenient sentence, and he said he would certainly turn a new leaf thereafter.

Counsel in mitigation submitted that there were particular features of this case that this court should take into account in sentencing him for the wounding-with-intent offence. Counsel submitted that there was no premeditation, and the offence was spontaneous. According to the video-recorded interview of the defendant, he said he was being provoked by the victim in the flat, and that was why he picked up the hammer to follow him and attack him thereafter.

Counsel said there was no earlier grievance between the two, no lying-in wait, no plan formed before the conversation in the flat, and the two men were on good terms according to the video-recorded interview of the defendant.

On the other hand, counsel submitted that there was this provocation and being treated with disrespect by the victim earlier while they were in the flat. But counsel rightly accepted that even if there was provocation, the response of the defendant was wholly out of proportion to his grievance.

Counsel also pointed to the fact that the weapon being used was a small hammer, which was accepted by the prosecution. Counsel submitted that the hammer had rounded striking faces instead of sharp edges and apparently the “rounded striking faces” account was consistent with what was being captured by the CCTV and the sketch drawn by the defendant in the video-recorded interview. As one could also see from the autopsy report, it appeared that the lacerations on the back of the head of the victim were also circular in shape, and they were also compatible with being impacted by a blunt object with a circular shape.

Counsel submitted that the defendant stopped striking the victim after he had struck him 11 times, the whole incident lasted for about 20 seconds on public street, and then the defendant walked away of his own accord. He did not continue to attack the victim.

Counsel also relied on the degree of injury being sustained by the victim, saying that there was no underlying fracture or brain injury, and all the other injuries including the defensive injuries were not considered to be fatal. In fact the victim remained conscious after the assault. One could see from the CCTV that he was able to get up and walk back to the building by himself. Also counsel submitted that the defendant was acting alone in the attack.

Counsel asked this court to accept the fact that there was no material or expert evidence as to the effect of the consumption of ‘Ice’ by the defendant before the attack on his state of mind. So the fact that he had taken ‘Ice’ before the attack should be seen as background to the 1st charge only, and this court should ignore any effect that the ‘Ice’ or the consumption of ‘Ice’ might have on his state of mind at the material time.

Counsel also submitted in written mitigation that the defendant took the hammer with him because he apprehended that the victim might not be alone once on the street, even though counsel said this was not advanced as any qualification of the agreed facts or as self‑defence. But then once he arrived on the street, counsel said the defendant realised that the victim was very much alone. Emotions took over him and he began assaulting the victim.

Counsel rightly accepted that the defendant had an appalling criminal record which should be seen as a serious aggravating factor in sentencing. Counsel urged this court to impose a lenient sentence and to give him the usual one‑third discount for his early plea of guilty.

In respect of Charge 2, that is the inhaling of a dangerous drug, counsel submitted that the consumption took place at the flat immediately before the assault, and it should be seen as a single continuous episode, as part of the circumstances of Charge 1. He urged this court to impose a wholly concurrent sentence, that a consecutive sentence would result in an aggregate sentence that would be disproportionate to the overall criminality of the defendant on this occasion.

In sentencing the defendant, I do bear in mind that wounding with intent is indeed a very serious offence. Any form of violence must be visited by condign punishment in order to serve the purposes of retribution and deterrence, particularly in cases of wounding with intent where the offender intended to inflict really serious bodily harm on another person. The offender may not be able to control the consequences to the other person. The court will have regard not just to the need to punish the offender for his conduct but also to the public interest of deterrence, both general and individual.

It is to be remembered that the maximum term of imprisonment for an offence of wounding with intent is one of life imprisonment. There is no sentencing tariff for the offence of wounding with intent. The sentences for the offence are very much caseandfactspecific, determined mainly by reference to the facts of the particular case as the circumstances in which such offences are committed are indefinitely varied. The circumstances of the offence, the background of the offender and the extent of injury differ from case to case. In the circumstances, other decided cases are of limited reference value.

It has been said by the Court of Appeal that the usual range would be between 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment, but it has been emphasised that this will very much depend on the particular facts and circumstances of each case.

In the case of HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [2013] 6 HKC 225, the Court of Appeal reiterated that wounding with intent was a serious offence which warranted a deterrent sentence, and set out the major sentencing considerations. The major considerations include:-

(1) The extent to which the assault was premeditated;

(2) The motivation underlying the assault;

(3) The mental or emotional state of the assailant;

(4) Whether the assailant was acting under the influence of alcohol or drugs;

(5) Whether the assault was committed by the assailant alone or as part of a group;

(6) The type of weapons employed;

(7) The level of force used;

(8) The injuries caused to the victim; and

(9) The effect of the assault upon the victim and those close to the victim.

The Court also pointed out that in respect of certain acts of violence, such as those involving triad gang attacks, the court must issue strong denunciation and impose sentences with a greater deterrent effect.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Chui Kwok Ming CACC 380/2013, and the Court of Appeal of Queensland in the case of the R v Fisher [2008] QCA 307 also identified some aggravating factors for this type of wounding cases. They include:-

(1) The defendant was the principal offender;

(2) The assault was committed in company;

(3) The assault was unprovoked;

(4) The assault took place in public place;

(5) The assault went on after the victim had fallen down;

(6) The assault went on after the victim became unable to defend himself;

(7) The victim suffered from serious and lasting injuries;

(8) At the police interview, the defendant misled the police as to the facts, indicating a lack of remorse.

In this particular case there were aggravating features identified as follows. This was an armed attack at night on a defenceless victim in a public place. As to what I could see from the CCTV videos, after the defendant had come up to the victim, he was pulling the left arm of the victim so that the victim was unable to get rid of him, and the victim was staying within an attacking distance. At the same time he forcefully used the hammer and deliberately aimed at the head of the victim and struck him for a total of 7 times. After the victim had fallen and sat on the ground, he released the left arm of the victim but continued to strike him 4 different times on his head.

I also bear in mind that this was not purely an unpremeditated case. It was not the case that the defendant offhandedly picked up an object at the scene to attack the victim when he was engulfed in rage. It was also different from the circumstances where a person attacked another person having lost control of his emotions on the spur of the moment, because one could see from the Summary of Facts that after the victim left the flat with the female, the defendant picked up a hammer from one of the rooms inside the flat, then he left the flat and followed them downstairs, and they all left the building together. He followed them for about 4 seconds before striking the back of the victim’s head with the small hammer forcefully. So it was not purely unpremeditated. But, on the other hand, I do accept that it appeared to happen shortly after the alleged provocation incident.

And there was the aggravating feature that after the victim had fallen to sit on the ground, apparently unable to defend himself and bare-handed, the defendant continued his attack by striking his head 4 more times with the hammer.

On the personal circumstances of the defendant, clearly he is a man with an appalling criminal record. He had just been discharged from prison for the offence of wounding with intent about one year before the present offences. It is apparent that the previous occasions of imprisonment were not heavy enough to deter him from using violence to deal with matters. One can see that he is a person with the tendency to resort to violence whenever it suits his emotional state.

And in respect of the 2nd charge of inhaling a dangerous drug, one can also see from his criminal record that he is a man associated with drug-related offences for years. This is also a matter that can be regarded as aggravating.

On the other hand, I accept counsel’s submission that in this case that the defendant was acting alone. The so‑called premeditation, even if there was a little bit, it was not lasting. And I accept the fact that it was after the alleged provocation he decided to pick up the hammer to launch the attack. However, I must say, in this case the so-called provocation, if any, in fact, according to the information before me, did not warrant such a serious attack on the defendant.

Details of the alleged provocation remained unknown. Upon my inquiry, counsel said that it happened shortly before the related persons left the premises. According to the Summary of Facts, the defendant admitted that he was all along in good relationship with the victim. Indeed it appeared that the two of them stayed in the flat for almost 4 hours. It is unclear as to how long was the time lapse between the alleged provocation and the fetching of the hammer by the defendant. Counsel submitted that the provocation in fact happened only shortly before the victim left the flat. On the material before me, even assuming that the defendant was being provoked, his retaliation was wholly out of proportion.

Also I do bear in mind that the sentence on Charge 1 must reflect the seriousness of the consequence of the attack. According to the Summary of Facts, about 20 minutes after the attack somebody noticed blood all over the head and the neck of the victim, and there was a 7-to-8-cm laceration on his scalp. The victim kept inhaling dangerous drugs and vaping for the next 2-3 hours to alleviate his pain. Autopsy also revealed 5 lacerations on the upper back of the head involving partial thickness of the scalp.

On the other hand, there was no material before this court to show how and the extent to which the defendant’s consumption of ‘Ice’ might have contributed to his emotional state at the material time. Of course I cannot and I should not speculate. As such I would accept counsel’s submission that in sentencing the defendant for the 1st charge, I would disregard the fact that he had consumed dangerous drug shortly before committing the offence.

I have also watched the CCTV videos and the photographs showing the injuries on the back of the head of the defendant. Taking into account all the circumstances of the case including the nature of the weapon used which I accept was a small hammer with circular faces, the injuries sustained by the victim, and the aggravating features as identified by me earlier, I consider that the appropriate starting point for the 1st charge should be one of 4 years’ imprisonment.

That starting point should be enhanced by 6 months, taking into account the appalling record of the defendant who had been convicted of wounding on a total of three occasions including 2 occasions of wounding with intent, the fact that his last conviction was also for the offence of wounding with intent, and he was only discharged from prison for that matter about one year before he committed the present offences.

So the notional starting point after trial should be 4½ years’ imprisonment for the 1st charge. The defendant pleaded guilty at an early opportunity, and he is entitled to a full one-third discount. So, in respect of the 1st charge, I will sentence him to a total of 3 years’ imprisonment.

Coming to the 2nd charge. I consider that the 2nd charge of inhaling a dangerous drug should be regarded as similarly serious as the offence of possession of dangerous drug: see the case of R v Wong Chi Nuen HCMA No. 22/1997. Again this offence was aggravated by the DD-related criminal convictions of the defendant.

Bearing in mind all the circumstances including the quantity of the ‘Ice’ consumed, the nature of the drug was ‘Ice’ alone and no other mixture of drug was involved, I consider that the appropriate starting point should be 2½ months’ imprisonment. That is to be enhanced by half a month because of the DD-related convictions of the defendant.

So, in respect of the 2nd charge, the overall starting point to be adopted is 3 months’ imprisonment. The defendant again pleaded guilty to this offence at an early stage. He is entitled to the full one-third discount. As such, for Charge 2, I will sentence him to 2 months’ imprisonment.

I disagree with counsel that totally concurrent sentences should be imposed for the two charges. Since I accept counsel’s submission that the effect of drug did not play any part in the commission of the offence of wounding of intent, the consumption of the ‘Ice’ by the defendant on that occasion should be seen as a totally separate and distinct matter that had no connection with the commission of the wounding offence at all.

Bearing in mind all the circumstances and the totality principle, I would order that the sentence for Charge 2 to be served wholly consecutive to the sentence in Charge 1. So the overall sentence for the two charges should be 3 years and 2 months’ imprisonment. I consider that 3 years and 2 months is just, fair and balanced in all the circumstances of this case.