HKSAR v. Chan Lek Sun also known as Chan Lek Kan

DCCC 1036/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1036 OF 2013

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to four charges of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212.

2.The offences were all committed at the Comet Lounge Karaoke which is on the Ground Floor of Hing Lung Main Street in Cheung Chau at about midnight on 4 June 2013. 

3.The defendant was initially charged with six offences and he pleaded guilty to Charges 1, 2, 5 and 6.  He pleaded not guilty to Charges 3 and 4.  The prosecution indicated that they were prepared to accept those pleas.  And after not guilty pleas were entered to Charges 3 and 4 and the facts admitted by the defendant, the court ordered that those charges should remain on the court file, not to be proceeded with without the leave of this court or the Court of Appeal.

4.The facts admitted by the defendant disclosed that at about 9.30 on 4 June 2013 the four victims in this case and some of their friends went to the Comet Lounge Karaoke to celebrate the birthday of a young lady who was referred to as PW1 in this case.  As it got towards midnight, there was nine of them altogether, some young men, some young women.

5.At about midnight, some of the persons in the karaoke lounge spotted three males, one of whom was the defendant, standing at the back door of the karaoke.  They were observed putting on surgical masks, some balaclavas and were holding beef knives.  These three males then rushed into the karaoke lounge and attacked PW1.

6.Shortly after this attack started, a further four to six unknown males holding either metal pipes or beef knives ran into the karaoke lounge via the front door and started to attack PW1 and the other members of her party.  During the attack, an unknown male yelled at PW1 from behind, she turned round and immediately a hard object was swung towards her head.  Another man involved in the attack pointed a beef knife at PW2 and attacked him without saying a word.  PW2 raised his hand to fend off the attack and he was chopped at two or three times. 

7.PW3 saw the attack on the girls and he tried to protect them by fending off the knife with his right hand.  He was hit about the head several times with a metal pipe. 

8.PW4 saw the males holding the metal pipes and beef knives and approaching two of the other members of their party from behind, and he immediately raised his arm and tried to fend off the attack.

9.Another witness, PW5, saw an unknown male wearing a balaclava attacking one of his friends, and he stopped that by pushing the attacker to the floor.  The man was later subdued on the floor by PWs 5 and 6.  In the course of subduing that person, the surgical mask was removed from the attacker and they could see that the attacker was the defendant.  The defendant was using a beef knife to slash out at people.  The defendant was rescued by some of the other attackers.

10.One of the men in the karaoke lounge set off in pursuit of the attackers and was hit by an unknown male on the head with a metal pipe. 

11.A report was made to the police and all nine of the party of people in the lounge were sent to Cheung Chau St John’s Hospital for treatment. 

12.Shortly after the attackers and the defendant had left the karaoke, the defendant who had also sustained injuries sought assistance from the police.  He was located at Hing Lung Street in Cheung Chau and was taken to Cheung Chau Hospital for treatment.

13.Four of the friends of PW1 identified the defendant at the hospital as being involved in the attack upon them, and the defendant was arrested and cautioned.  The defendant was later picked out by two of the victims at an identification parade. 

14.As a result of the attack, PW1 sustained a 6-centimetre laceration over her forehead which partially extended to her skull. She also had a laceration to her right arm.  These wounds were stitched and she was discharged on the same day.  Cut wounds were found on PW2’s left arm and knee.  A laceration was found on PW5’s left axilla and lacerations were found on both PW6’s hands and right arm.  Photographs of those injuries have been produced in court.

15.The defendant has appeared in court on four previous occasions.  Three of those appearances involved offences of violence. In 2002, for robbery, he was sent to prison for 14 months.  In 2005, for drug-related offences, he was sent to the drug addiction treatment centre.  In 2009, for assault occasioning actual bodily harm he was imprisoned for 6 months.  And in 2010 for fighting in a public place, he was fined $1,000. 

16.In mitigation, the counsel now representing the defendant, Mr Wong, explained that although this matter was listed for trial and that the defendant had in fact discharged the original legal representatives this was not because of any intentional delaying tactic on his part.  I was told that an important piece of evidence was drawn to the attention of the defendant at a late stage and once he had realised the totality of the evidence against him, he decided to enter the pleas which he did enter. 

17.The defendant is 30 years of age.  He was born in Hong Kong and he was educated to Secondary 2 standard.  I am told that he has a share in a shop in Cheung Chau and assists in the management of a public house there.  He earns some $20,000 a month.  His father is a maintenance worker in Singapore. 

18.I am told that he participated in this attack as a misguided act of loyalty towards one of the other attackers.  This friend of his had a conflict with one of the victims relating to a woman.  It was pointed out that the defendant’s behaviour was less aggressive than the others in that the victims had managed to subdue him at one stage.  Also some of the victims sustained injuries while struggling with the defendant when the defendant was on the ground. 

19.I am told that the defendant suffered injuries and that he was detained in hospital for a number of days.  Although the victims sustained injuries, fortunately, there were no permanent injuries sustained and they were discharged from hospital on the same day. 

20.The maximum sentence for this offence is life imprisonment.  All offences contrary to section 17 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance are serious as they contain the ingredient that the offender intended to inflict really serious injury at that time.  There are no tariffs for offences of this kind and each case depends on its own particular facts. 

21.These offences are particularly serious.  They were premeditated.  It was in a public place.  The victims were celebrating the birthday of a young lady PW1 in a karaoke lounge and they were part of a group of nine young men and women.  At about midnight the defendant and two unknown males were observed at the back door of the lounge putting on face masks and balaclavas and armed with beef knives.  As they rushed from the back of the karaoke lounge, a group of five or six males armed with metal pipes and beef knives rushed in to the front door of the lounge.  This must have been a terrifying experience for the victims, the staff of the karaoke lounge and any members of the public who happened to be there at that time. 

22.As I mentioned previously, it was fortunate that no permanent injuries were sustained by the victims and they were all discharged from hospital the same day.  This, in my view, is entirely fortuitous, and the defendant might well have ended up facing even more serious charges.  No civilised society can tolerate this sort of behaviour.

23.I know that the defendant was injured in the attack and detained in the hospital for treatment.  The only real mitigation in this case is that the defendant has pleaded guilty.  I accept that once the evidence had been fully explained to the defendant by his new counsel, he decided to enter guilty pleas to the four charges.  I give him full credit for his guilty pleas. 

24.The defendant does not have a clear record.  He has a history of violence albeit not on this scale.  In my view, the defendant is very fortunate that this case has been allowed to proceed in this court rather than in the High Court.

25.I take as a starting point for these offences the maximum sentence I am permitted to impose, namely 7 years’ imprisonment. As I indicated before, the defendant is entitled to credit for his guilty plea.  He will therefore go to prison for 56 months.

26.As all these offences were committed in one concerted attack on the victims, I order that all the sentences should run concurrently. 

Please refer to CACC188/2014 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal.