HKSAR v. Wong Pak Hung

Case No.HCCC 155/2011
Court
High Court CFI
Date29 Nov 2011
Judge
Case Document
100%

HCCC155/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 155 OF 2011

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

  HKSAR  
  v  
  Wong Pak-hung  
-----------------
Before: Hon Macrae J
Date: 29 November 2011 at 12.29 pm
Present: Mr Vincent Wong, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Peter Cahill, instructed by Messrs Pang, Wan & Choi, assigned by D.L.A., for the Accused
Offence: (1) Robbery (搶劫罪)
(2) Manslaughter (誤殺)

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: This is, as Mr Cahill has termed it, a tragic case. It was a tragedy for Madam Chui Mun-fan, the deceased, who lost her life at the age of 44 as a result of losing her balance, falling, and hitting her head on the staircase when you snatched her handbag. It is a tragedy for the deceased’s husband, and it is a tragedy for her young son and daughter, who have lost their mother.

It has been submitted that you did not expect such tragic consequences when you set out to rob the deceased. That may be so, but given the obvious element of surprise at that time of night and at that location, and given that the deceased was effectively pulled backwards and thrown off balance by your action as she was ascending the staircase, the consequence of her falling and injuring herself was hardly an unpredictable one.

However, given the absence of any murderous intent, the prosecution has rightly accepted that this case should properly proceed as one of manslaughter, and you have wisely pleaded guilty to that offence.

Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten that a life has been needlessly lost as a result of your selfish and callous act.

I do not accept that this was a spontaneous, opportunistic action on your part. It is clear from what you told the police that you left home that night intending and prepared to snatch handbags, and that having identified a potential victim on the other side of the road, you followed the deceased as she entered the park and walked up the staircase.

What particularly concerns me, and what aggravates your position, is that you have a bad record for violence, having appeared twice before in the High Court on charges of robbery. In October 1996 you were sentenced in this court to 2½ years’ imprisonment for robbery. In March 2000, for two offences of robbery and a further offence of handling stolen goods, you received an overall sentence again in this court of 6 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

You have other offences of violence on your record, the most recent being in March 2002, for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, when you were sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment.

You are somebody, it seems to me, who has a propensity for violence, and from whom lone women walking home late at night deserve the court’s protection.

Had this been an offence of robbery alone without the tragic consequences which resulted, I would, in the circumstances of this case, notwithstanding that no weapon was used, but having regard to the fact that you attacked a lone woman late at night as she was returning home, and having regard to your appalling record of offences for robbery and violence, have adopted a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment. On your plea of guilty to an offence of robbery, I would have sentenced you to 4 years’ imprisonment.

However, this offence does not stand alone. A life was taken through your selfishness and greed, and you will have to live with the consequences of your selfishness and greed for the deceased and her family for the rest of your life.

I have been referred to various authorities by the prosecution and the defence from both England and Hong Kong. However, the huge variety of circumstances in which the offence of manslaughter is committed leaves sentencing very much at large. Moreover, I am doubtful whether sentencing standards in England are necessarily applicable to this jurisdiction in this particular realm of sentencing.

Hong Kong is a very crowded and tense environment, and the unlawful and dangerous act constituted by your actions in this case must be deterred.

As Mr Cahill rightly says, I am not obliged to indicate any starting point for the offence of manslaughter. I can indicate, however, that since the two offences arose out of the same act, the sentences on each count will be concurrent.

In my judgment, the proper sentence for the offence of manslaughter, bearing in mind all the circumstances of this offence, your background and your plea of guilty, is one of 10 years’ imprisonment, which will run concurrently with the sentence of 4 years for the offence of robbery.

Wong Pak-hung, you will go to prison for 10 years.

Related Cases
Ranked by citation overlap · cases that cite each other appear first
Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case