CRIMINAL CASE NO. 120 OF 2010
COURT: In July 2006, a dispute occurred between two groups of people. One of them, a person named Lee Tai-lung, was a member of the Sun Yee On triad society. The other, a man named Man San-chung, was a member of the Wo Shing Wo triad society.
As a result of that dispute, Man San-chung was injured and bore a scar. He also bore a desire for revenge against Lee Tai‑lung.
You were what is described in the Summary of Facts as an associate of Man San-chung.
It took three years before it was possible for Man San‑chung to arrange to extract his revenge. At the end of July 2009, he planned an attack on Lee Tai-lung which eventually took place on 4 August.
As part of the planning for the revenge attack, Man San‑chung sought to set up an alibi for himself and others who were to carry out the attack, for, as is commonly the practice among cowards, he himself was not going to do the dirty work.
On 1 August, he telephoned you to see whether you knew of any boats that would be available to smuggle him and the perpetrators of the attack from mainland China to Hong Kong and back again. The plan, insofar as the alibi is concerned, was that they would leave Hong Kong lawfully, be smuggled back into Hong Kong, commit the offence, return to the mainland, and then re-enter Hong Kong apparently lawfully, thus showing, through Immigration Department records, that none of them was in Hong Kong on the day of the assault.
You were told that some form of assault was planned, and the purpose of the alibi. You put Man San-chung in touch with somebody called Li Hon-kit, who owned a high-speed boat that was able to travel to the mainland and back. Li Hon-kit agreed to carry Man San-chung, a person named Lo Chin-wang, and two other persons from the mainland to Hong Kong and back at night for a fee of $36,000.
At that stage then, your initial involvement was simply to act as a go-between to facilitate the creation of the alibi, knowing that a criminal venture was planned.
Around 1.30 am on 4 August, you were telephoned by yet another friend of yours, who was involved in the planned assault. Without telling you what the job was or what you would be required to do, your friend asked you to go out to give a hand. You agreed to do so. Your friend collected you from near your home in a motor vehicle which was then carrying two other passengers.
That vehicle then met up with two other vehicles, they carrying some eight persons between them. One of them was a Toyota van which was driven by Lo Chin-wang. It carried three other people as passengers who, it eventuated, were the three people who actually chopped Lee Tai-lung.
There was a discussion between the occupants of the three vehicles. Man San-chung was present at that discussion, as were you. You asked the friend who had asked you to come to assist what the matter was, and you were told that the party was going to hack someone. Your friend sought to reassure you that the vehicle that you were in was only accompanying the other vehicles; there would be no need for you to get out, as the people in the Toyota van would do the job.
You have said, and the prosecution has accepted, that at that stage, when you knew an actual chopping was to be involved, that you did not want to go. You asked to leave, but the friend who had called you out said you could not go because you knew of the plan, and in any event, by that stage, the vehicles were on the way to the chopping. An hour or so later, it was indicated by telephone that the vehicles should turn up, and the three of them went to the Shangri-La Hotel.
Lee Tai-lung was alighting his motor vehicle. The vehicle that you were in and another support vehicle were present when the Toyota van drove into the forecourt of the Shangri-La Hotel at speed and struck Lee Tai-lung.
I of course have heard a considerable amount of evidence over the last 22 days about just what happened on that night. One matter of which your counsel could not be expected to be aware but seems to me to be in your favour is that the evidence was that there was no discussion about the use of the Toyota van as a weapon.
To make sure that that is clearly understood, there was positive evidence to the effect there was no such discussion.
At that stage, what appears to have been contemplated was a chopping - indeed, instructions appear to have been given to the knifemen that arteries, the head and vital parts, were to be avoided. Be that as it may, Lee Tai-lung was struck by the Toyota van, and the injuries that he sustained were sufficient to have resulted in his death.
The Toyota van stopped after striking him, and three persons alighted, ran to where he lay, and then set about him with large knives.
The post-mortem report also indicated that the injuries inflicted by the assault with knives were also sufficient to have resulted in his death.
The three knifemen returned to the Toyota van and the vehicles departed.
Lee Tai-lung died in Queen Mary Hospital some two hours later.
The three vehicles drove away. You were dropped off in Shatin. Shortly thereafter, Li Hon-kit, the boatman, telephoned you and inquired whether you had a way to contact Man San-chung. He indicated to you that they had to leave soon or not at all, as the No. 8 strong wind signal had been hoisted. You told Li that he actually had to bring his boat to collect the four people for the return journey because they had just done a job and had to leave Hong Kong immediately. You contacted an intermediary who in turn contacted Man San‑chung and passed on Li Hon-kit’s message.
Another man contacted Li Hon-kit and indicated that he had to collect the party at ham Cheng Pier. That person met Li Hon‑kit at Ap Lei Chau, paid him the $36,000 fee, and then travelled to ham Cheng with Li Hon-kit in order to keep the boat stable, so bad was the weather. Li Hon-kit met Man San‑chung and his three companions and then drove them back to the mainland.
You were originally charged, together with the other persons, with a single charge of murder. Prior to the commencement of the trial, you indicated that you would enter a plea of guilty to manslaughter on the basis that Mr Chandler has made clear to me today. That plea, understandably, was acceptable to the prosecution.
I acknowledge that you did not set out to be a participant as such in the assault on Lee Tai-lung. However, it is quite clear that you were more than willing to immediately respond to the request to you to go out, and you could have been under no misapprehension in those circumstances of the fact that you were being called out in connection with the assault on Lee Tai-lung.
I acknowledge further that once it had been made clear to you that the assault was to take the form of a chopping, it appears that you did seek to dissociate yourself from that part of the proceedings.
That said, you have never sought to dissociate yourself from the provision of what, on the face of it, could have been a very good alibi available to the perpetrators of the assault. That was, it is self-evident, an important act in relation to the execution of the plan as a whole.
I acknowledge also that you have pleaded to the lesser offence of manslaughter, and I am told that you have at all times been willing to do so and co‑operative and frank with the police since the time of your arrest.
Those are all factors that I take into account in your favour in determining the appropriate sentence.
Manslaughter is the one offence which does not require a sentencing court to nominate a starting point and then arithmetically and mechanically reduce it in order to take account of mitigating features such as a plea of guilty.
There is nothing in your personal background which aggravates the facts of this matter for the purpose of sentence. You do have a criminal record, but nothing in it is in any way related to offences of violence.
You played a real and meaningful role in this overall plan, though I recognise that you were not by any manner or means the prime mover, nor were you apparently required to be involved in the actual assault on Lee Tai-lung.
In all the circumstances, it seems to me that the appropriate sentence is one of 6 years’ imprisonment.