HKSAR v. Limbu Imbohang
|
DCCC 1049/2025 [2026] HKDC 1937 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 1049 OF 2025 ________________________
________________________
________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ________________________ Introduction 1.The defendant is solely charged with one count of inflicting grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 19 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212, Laws of Hong Kong. 2.He pleaded guilty to the charge and admitted the facts as set out in the prosecution’s Amended Summary of Facts. Upon his plea and admission, he was convicted as charged. Facts Admitted Incident 3.At about 2:41 a.m. on 13 January 2025, PW1, PW2 and PW3 were patronizing Space Club in Central. PW1 had consumed some alcohol but was not intoxicated. The defendant, who did not know PW1’s group, was also present. 4.As PW1 walked towards the exit of Space Club, he bumped into another male (“WP1”), leading to a physical dispute. A few other males, including the defendant, immediately joined WP1 in struggling with PW1. They pushed PW1 out of Space Club and continued the struggle with PW1 outside Space Club. They pushed PW1 onto the ground, and thereupon they continued to assault PW1 with fists and kicks for about six seconds. 5.As PW1 later crawled up and was already backing off, the defendant re-approached PW1 and delivered another punch towards PW1, causing PW1 to fall onto the ground again. The group, including the defendant, then walked away. 6.The incident was captured by CCTV inside and outside Space Club and by a passing taxi’s dash-cam. PW2 and PW3 later found PW1 unconscious outside the premises and reported the matter to the police. PW1’s injuries 7.PW1 sustained left ear bleeding, scalp haematoma, left lip laceration, and a right epidural haematoma with subarachnoid haemorrhage, together with a skull base fracture and pneumocephalus. 8.He underwent craniotomy and lip wound suturing, suffered post-concussional syndrome, and remained hospitalized for 11 days. Arrest and Interview 9.The defendant was arrested on 14 January 2025. Clothing matching that seen in the CCTV footage was seized from his residence. 10.In a video-recorded interview, the defendant stated that he intervened because PW1 grabbed his friend, was struck by PW1 during the pushing, became agitated, and punched PW1. He confirmed that the seized clothing belonged to him and was worn at the time. Personal Background and Mitigation 11.Counsel for the Defendant, Mr Pannu-Yuon, submits that the defendant is a young offender with a stable and positive personal background. He is now 20 years old and was only 18 at the time of the offence. Born in Nepal and brought to Hong Kong at three months of age, he has grown up locally, completed Form 6 education and entered the workforce to support his family. He has been contributing HK$8,000 to 9,000 per month to his parents, while his father is currently in Nepal receiving medical treatment. 12.The defendant has no previous criminal record in Hong Kong and has otherwise led a law-abiding life. Counsel further submits that the defendant has demonstrated genuine remorse. He cooperated fully with the police, provided a frank account of the events and pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. He spent 14 days in remand, which he describes as a sobering experience. Since then, the defendant has voluntarily attended counselling and taken steps towards rehabilitation. 13.A number of mitigation and support letters have been submitted for my consideration. I have read them all in detail and do not propose to repeat their contents. In summary, the defendant expresses remorse, accepts responsibility for his conduct and apologizes to PW1. His mother refers to his contribution to the household and the financial and emotional hardship that imprisonment would cause the family. His former employer describes him as polite, hardworking and helpful. 14.The other supporting materials are similarly positive. SideBySide confirms that the defendant has attended counselling to facilitate reflection and improve his emotional awareness and stress management. Various community organizations, including the Lali Gunras Association, the Foreigners Hong Kong Taekwondo Association, the Kirat Yakthung Chumlung Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Nepalese Federation, attest to his good character, discipline and involvement in community activities, with some expressing willingness to continue supporting his rehabilitation. Collectively, these materials demonstrate that the defendant has substantial family and community support. 15.Mr Pannu-Yuon draws the Court’s attention to §84 of Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (黃之鋒) (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35, where the Court of Final Appeal stated that an offender’s age is always a relevant mitigating factor and that, in the case of a young offender, the ordinarily better opportunity for reformation and rehabilitation assumes greater significance. 16.Mr Pannu-Yuon also relies on HKSAR v Au Chun Foo [2024] HKCA 169 at §21. While accepting that an offence of wounding with intent is serious and calls for a deterrent sentence, counsel invites the Court, in assessing the present offence, to take into account the following matters:
17.Mr Pannu-Yuon places particular emphasis on the defendant’s youth. The defendant was only 18 at the time of the offence and is now 20. Having regard also to his self-reflection, clear record, family and community support, employment history and rehabilitative prospects, counsel invites the Court to obtain the three “3C” reports, namely the Rehabilitation Centre, Detention Centre and Training Centre reports, together with a community service order suitability report, so that the available sentencing options may be fully explored. Pre-Sentencing Reports 18.I have considered all the mitigation advanced on the defendant’s behalf. The defendant is now 20 years old. As a general rule, section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap 221) restricts the imposition of imprisonment on an offender aged between 16 and 21 unless the Court is satisfied that no other method of dealing with the offender is appropriate. 19.Mr Pannu-Yuon accepts that the present offence is an excepted offence under Schedule 3 and that the restriction under section 109A does not apply. He nevertheless relies on R v Chiang Sun Keung [1997] HKLRD 24, in which the Court of Appeal emphasized that, whether or not the offence is an excepted offence under section 109A, it remains incumbent upon the Court “to be wary and to exercise great care before they commit young offenders to prison.” 20.Mr Pannu-Yuon invites the Court to give particular weight to the defendant’s youth, background, remorse and strong support network. He submits that these factors warrant consideration of alternatives to imprisonment and that, in the case of a young offender, rehabilitation should be accorded particular importance. 21.I have carefully considered those submissions and borne the defendant’s youth firmly in mind. Nevertheless, the present offence is a serious one. The assault involved sustained violence and caused significant harm. In light of these features, imprisonment was clearly a sentencing option which required serious consideration. I was also satisfied that the case fell well outside the range in which a community service order would be appropriate. 22.That said, I bore in mind that the defendant was only 18 at the time of the offence and has no previous convictions. Having carefully considered all the mitigation advanced on his behalf, I considered that there remained some room for rehabilitation. Notwithstanding the seriousness of the offence, I was therefore prepared to explore whether a detention centre order, a training centre order or a rehabilitation centre order might provide an appropriate alternative to imprisonment. 23.Accordingly, in addition to a background report, I called for the three “3C” reports. At the same time, I made it clear to the defendant that imprisonment remained a sentencing option under consideration. 24.The case was then adjourned to today for the preparation of those reports. Mr Pannu-Yuon confirms that he has explained to the defendant the contents of all the reports, including the updated medical reports concerning PW1, and that the defendant understands their contents and takes no issue with them. At today’s hearing, Mr Pannu-Yuon invites me to adopt the recommendation of the Commissioner of Correctional Services and to impose a Rehabilitation Centre order. Background Report 25.According to the background report, this was the first time the defendant had been involved in a fight. He said that the incident unfolded rapidly and that he had little time to consider how to react. He expressed remorse, undertaking to be more cautious and to think twice before acting in future. He has also sought counselling from SideBySide on anger management. 26.The report further notes that the defendant’s mother relies on him to assist with various daily matters because of her limited language ability. She said that she felt lost and helpless without his assistance and asked the Court to consider a non-custodial sentence. Ms Cheung, the general manager of the defendant’s former employer, expressed satisfaction with his work performance and described him as helpful and willing to learn. Medical Evidence Concerning PW1’s Post-Injury Condition 27.During the adjournment, both parties agreed that updated medical information concerning PW1 should be obtained to ascertain whether he had suffered any residual symptoms following the assault. Before sentencing, I considered the further medical reports submitted by the Prosecution dated 18 September 2026, 21 September 2026 and 6 October 2026. 28.The reports show that PW1 continued to experience a number of symptoms following his operation. On 8 February 2025, he attended the Accident and Emergency Department complaining of left-sided hearing loss, loss of taste, dizziness and unsteady gait, and was admitted to the neurosurgery ward with a diagnosis of post-concussion syndrome. On 19 May 2025, he again sought medical attention for loss of smell and taste and was referred to the Ear, Nose and Throat clinic. His subsequent attendance on 5 April 2026 for a scalp lump was of uncertain relation to the present injury, while his attendance on 20 April 2026 for left ear pain and discharge from a pre-auricular sinus was assessed as unrelated. 29.The Police also obtained a further statement from PW1 on 24 September 2026 concerning his condition following the assault. He reported severe hearing loss in his left ear, loss of smell and taste, and blurred vision. The medical records further show that PW1 attended Queen Mary Hospital on numerous occasions between January 2025 and August 2026. According to PW1, he was granted a total of 57 days’ sick leave between 13 January 2025 and 6 April 2026. Sentencing Considerations 30.The offence under section 19 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance (Cap 212) carries a maximum sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment on indictment. There is no established sentencing tariff for this offence, and the appropriate sentence must therefore be determined by reference to the circumstances of the assault, the level of violence used, and the harm caused. 31.This was a serious incident of group violence in a public place. What began as a mere collision between PW1 and another male (WP1) rapidly escalated into a multi-handed assault. PW1 was pushed out of the nightclub, forced to the ground and assaulted by several males with punches and kicks for about six seconds. 32.The CCTV footage, although of modest quality, nonetheless clearly depicts the defendant’s actions as set out in the Amended Summary of Facts. Before re-approaching PW1, the defendant can be seen participating in the group assault and, in particular, delivering a forceful kick to PW1. The defendant was readily identifiable on the footage as his jacket and light colour jeans made him easy to distinguish from the others. Thereafter, as PW1 “later crawled up and was already backing off”, the defendant re-approached him and delivered another punch, causing PW1 to fall to the ground again. From my observation of the footage, PW1 appeared to lose consciousness upon falling and showed no reaction thereafter. 33.I have not overlooked the defence submission that the defendant in present case is solely charged and not jointly charged with other assailants. However, I cannot ignore what CCTV capture and the defendant’s own admission that PW1 was first pushed out of the bar and assaulted by several males before the defendant delivered the additional punch. 34.Mr Pannu-Yuon further submits that the assault did not continue after PW1 had fallen down or become unable to defend himself. I am unable to agree with this submission. By the time PW1 had crawled up and was already backing off, he was no longer engaging with the group. It was at that stage that the defendant re-approached him and delivered the further punch which caused him to fall to the ground again. In my view, this further act of violence against PW1 after he was already backing off is a particularly serious feature of the offence. 35.Although the assault was relatively brief, it involved multiple acts of violence by several assailants within a short period. It took place outside a nightclub in the busy district of Central, with pedestrians present and vehicles passing through the vicinity. Violence of this nature in a public area poses a clear threat to public order and safety and must be regarded seriously by the Court. 36.I have considered the defence submission that the defendant’s youth and inexperience with alcohol may have influenced his behaviour. However, self-intoxication is not a mitigating factor, and his lack of familiarity with alcohol does not explain or diminish the gravity of the violence in this case.More importantly, the seriousness of the offence must be assessed in light of the actual harm caused to PW1. 37.PW1 suffered very serious and life-threatening injuries, including epidural haematoma, subarachnoid haemorrhage and a skull base fracture, requiring a craniotomy and 11 days’ hospitalisation. The injury photographs show a long sutured wound on his head, consistent with the seriousness of the injuries described in the medical evidence. The fact that PW1 did not suffer even more serious or permanent harm was a matter of fortuity. Nor should it be overlooked that the updated medical materials show that PW1 continued to report significant symptoms following the assault and required repeated medical attention and follow-up, including for hearing loss, loss of smell and taste, dizziness and unsteady gait. He subsequently also reported blurred vision. According to PW1, he was granted a total of 57 days’ sick leave. These matters further underscore the seriousness of the harm caused. 38.The defence relies on HKSAR v Lee Hon Yung (HCMA 69/2000) and HKSAR v Fung Kiu Wan馮橋穩 (HCMA 140/2012) in inviting consideration of a community service order. Neither case assists the defendant. Lee Hon Yung concerned a spontaneous dispute between friends in a domestic setting and did not involve group violence or life-threatening harm. Fung Kiu Wan arose from a workplace argument involving mutual scuffling, and the injuries were limited to a facial laceration requiring five stitches; the Court expressly noted that the incident was not a one-sided or sustained assault. The degree of violence and the resulting harm in the present case are of an entirely different magnitude. 39.I have also considered HKSAR v Chan King Yun James (陳敬胤) (CACC 384/2011). That case involved a single impulsive punch in a friendly basketball game, yet attracted a custodial starting point of two years’ imprisonment, which the Court of Appeal held fell well within the trial judge’s discretion. 40.Having considered the “3C” reports, I note that the Commissioner of Correctional Services reports that the defendant is medically unfit for detention in a Detention Centre due to overweight, but mentally and physically fit for detention in either a Rehabilitation Centre or a Training Centre. Having assessed his behaviour and attitude whilst on remand, the Commissioner considers him more suitable for detention in a Rehabilitation Centre. 41.Notwithstanding that recommendation, I do not consider a Rehabilitation Centre order appropriate in the circumstances of this case. A Rehabilitation Centre order provides for a detention period of between 3 and 9 months. In my view, such a relatively short period of detention would be insufficient to reflect the seriousness of the present offence and the substantial harm caused to PW1. It would not adequately mark the gravity of the offending. 42.I have not lost sight of the fact that, given the seriousness of the offence, immediate imprisonment remained a sentencing option which I had seriously considered. However, in my view, a Training Centre order provides a rehabilitative structure that imprisonment cannot offer. With proper training, guidance and supervision, there remains genuine hope that the defendant may turn a new leaf. In these circumstances, a Training Centre order is not a lenient option; rather, it is capable of appropriately balancing the seriousness of the offence with the defendant’s rehabilitative prospects. 43.A Training Centre order, by contrast, provides for detention for a period of not less than 6 months and not more than 3 years, with the usual period of detention being in the region of 18 months. It offers a substantially longer and more structured custodial programme. As I understand it, the precise duration depends on the offender’s progress and performance, and the period of disciplinary training in a closed setting may in practice extend to about two years. Upon release, the defendant would be subject to a statutory supervision period of three years. The regime is designed for young offenders who retain prospects for rehabilitation and is intended to promote their reformation through sustained training and supervision. 44.Having reviewed all the reports and all relevant circumstances, I have balanced all the relevant factors, including the defendant’s youth, lack of premeditation, clear record, remorse and rehabilitative potential, against the seriousness of the offence and the harm caused. Having carried out that balancing exercise, I am persuaded that a Training Centre order is more appropriate than immediate imprisonment in the particular circumstances of this case. It is capable of both reflecting the gravity of the offending and providing structured rehabilitative intervention. 45.Taking all the circumstances into account, I therefore order that the defendant be detained in a Training Centre.
|
Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error
Cases cited in this judgment