HKSAR v. Woo Kam Cheung

Case No.HCCC 48/2015

Court

High Court CFI

Date26 Nov 2015

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCCC 48/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 48 OF 2015

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

	HKSAR
	v
	WOO Kam-cheung

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

Before:

DHCJ Lugar-Mawson

Date:

26 November 2015 at 10.24 am

Present:	Mr Bernard M Ryan, on fiat, for HKSAR
	Mr Phillip G Ross, instructed by W K To & Co, assigned by DLA, for the accused

Offence:

Murder (謀殺)

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

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

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

COURT: Woo Kam-cheung, I respect the jury’s verdict that they delivered yesterday. It is clear that they accepted that something your wife said and did that night caused you to snap and assault her violently and kill her in the course of that assault.

There is no evidence that you are a violent man by nature, and I accept that the attack on your wife was wholly out of character.

I note that you are of a clear record, you have no criminal convictions recorded against you, but a clear record is really of little mitigating value in cases of manslaughter.

It is clear, and it is very much to your credit, that your wife and yourself brought up three children, all of whom I have no reason to believe are anything other than hardworking and decent citizens.

It is clear from the letter that Mr Ross handed to me, which is signed by all of your children and grandchildren, that despite the pain their mother’s death has caused them they have forgiven you. I am sure that they will support and standby you whilst you are in prison and that they will also support and standby you once you are released from prison.

I cannot overlook the fact that this was a frenzied attack and that your wife suffered horrific head injuries as well as injuries to her arms. Your wife must have been terrified before she mercifully passed away.

I am sure that Mr Ross will have told you this, justice demands that you be imprisoned for your offence for a considerable period of time.

I have given very careful consideration to what extent your sentence can be mitigated by reason of your age because I know that you are now 77. I have decided that a reduction in the sentence I would have passed if you had not been so old can be justified, not as a matter of principle, but as an act of mercy.

I have decided that your sentence will be one of 7 years’ imprisonment. It would have been one of 9 years’ imprisonment had you not been of an advanced age and of good character.