HKSAR v. Li Siu Hang
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 343/2017 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 17 October 2017.
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to three charges of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences Against the Persons Ordinance.
Cites 7 cases
|
DCCC 343/2017 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 343 OF 2017 -------------------------
-------------------------
----------------------------------------- REASONS FOR SENTENCE ----------------------------------------- 1.The defendant pleaded guilty to three charges of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences Against the Persons Ordinance. Summary of Facts 2.The incident occurred in the early hours of 26 December 2016. PW1 was a bartender at Ichi Bar located in Fanling. PW2 and 3 were customers of the bar. At around 3 am on 26 December 2016, PW1 observed that the defendant was drunk and was shouting nonsense. He was asked to leave, but he did not co-operate. He scolded PW1 and other people in the bar with some shoving with PW1 and others as well. Eventually, defendant was expelled from the bar and left. 3.According to PW1, a few minutes later, defendant ran back towards the bar. PW1 went outside to stop him. Defendant held a 2-to-3-feet-long machete in his left hand, rushed forward to PW1 to chop him. PW1 used both his hands to block the attack and quickly retreated. PW1 saw his right and left palms bleeding. He waited outside the bar for assistance. 4.When PW2 went outside of the bar to check what happened, defendant rushed towards him and chopped his head once with the machete. PW2 felt pain on his head and his head was bleeding. PW2 also retreated to the bar and eventually was taken to North District Hospital. 5.PW3 went out of the bar also to check what happened. PW3 witnessed defendant attacking PW1 and 2 with something like a machete. He went forward to stop the defendant. The defendant chopped him on his right forearm once. PW3 immediately used his right hand to grab the back of the blade and forcefully caused the machete to drop to the ground. PW3’s wrist was cut. He took a taxi to the hospital for treatment. 6.Prior to the incident, PW1 and the defendant did not have any previous grudges or dispute before. 7.PW4 was the bar licence holder. On that day, before the incident, he talked to the defendant and found out the defendant had relationship problem and quarrelled with his girlfriend. Later, the defendant’s younger brother joined the defendant at the bar. PW4 left the bar at around 3.55 am but was called back to the bar because of this incident. While he was in the taxi, he saw defendant on the street holding something like a machete of around 2.5 feet in length. PW4 got off the taxi and shouted the defendant’s nickname. However, defendant ran towards the bar with his brother running after him. 8.Outside the bar, PW4 saw defendant chop PW1 with the machete. PW4 rushed forward with others to subdue the defendant. During the struggle, defendant’s machete dropped to the ground. PW4 stepped on it. Other people asked the defendant to calm down. When PW4 was attending PW1, the defendant picked up the machete and fled. When police arrived, the defendant reappeared outside the bar. PW4 pointed the defendant to the police. He was arrested at 4.40 am for an offence of wounding. 9.Under caution, he asked whether his brother was all right. The arresting officer noticed the defendant was suffering from abrasion to his left forehead, left thumb and right knee. Injury of PW1 to 3 10.PW1 suffered a 4 cm deep laceration over his right palm, 2 cm superficial laceration over his left hand. 11.PW2 suffered a 5 cm laceration on his forehead with active bleeding. He also suffered right frontal bone fracture and was transferred to the department of neurosurgery of Prince of Wales Hospital for management. His wound was noticed with haematoma with fresh blood oozing. Plastic and reconstruction surgery team was consulted with bedside sutures done. He was discharged on 28 December 2016 with follow-up appointments. 12.PW3 suffered a 3 cm laceration on his right forearm and 2 cm laceration on his right thumb. He was discharged after suturing. 13.CCTV installed in the rear alley had captured the defendant discarding the machete near to the bar. Video-recorded Interview of the defendant 14.He admitted that he was drinking with his younger brother at that time. He could not remember what time he got there and what time he left. He could not explain the bloodstain on his clothings. Criminal record 15.The defendant had three appearances in court with four convictions: two offences for possession of dangerous drugs in 1995 and 2007 with a fine of $1,500 and DATC order respectively; in 2014, he was sentenced to 3 years and 6 months for false imprisonment and blackmail in the District Court. Mitigation 16.Defendant is now 30 years of age. He is still single. Although he had been sentenced to DATC in 2007, he is no longer a drug addict. Prior to this offence, he worked as a construction site worker, earned about $16,000 per month. He contributed $1,000 to support his parents. Apart from working in a car-repairing shop, he had also worked as an earth investigation worker before. 17.He had a steady girlfriend for 10 years. At the material time, it was Christmas. She went out with her friends without inviting him. The defendant was upset and went to the bar in question to drink his night away with half a bottle of whisky and 12 cans of beers. When he was driven away from the bar, there was some sort of body contact which caused him some minor injuries. 18.The weapon in question was picked up by him during his work as an earth investigation worker. What he did on that day was under the influence of excessive alcohol. He left the scene and returned back to the scene and was arrested without any resistance. He is saying that he will not touch alcohol again. After his release from prison, he will move away from Fanling to turn over a new leaf. 19.He had three letters from his girlfriend, his brother and his employer. His girlfriend said that the defendant treated her very well. She felt guilty for the present offence because she went out without bringing him along and made him feel very upset. His brother said that he was upset that night and drank a lot of wine. His superior wrote a letter to inform this court that the company would consider to re-employ him upon his release from imprisonment. Lastly, the defence withdrew the mitigation on the ground of provocation that the defendant was beaten up by PW1 and others when he was driven away from the bar. Sentence 20.When I passed sentence on the defendant, I bore in mind of all the mitigating factors advanced on his behalf, including the mitigating letters. I also took into account that the defendant had stayed out of trouble since 2007. 21.The Summary of Facts reveal that the defendant has been drinking and causing nuisance in the bar. It was totally understandable why he was told to leave. The reason why he was drinking so excessively was because his girlfriend went to celebrate Christmas without him. He was upset and unhappy. Acting under the influence of alcohol, the defendant went home to take a machete and returned to the bar to attack PW1 to 3. PW1 and other staff drove him out of the bar. They did not have any grudges before, but he came back with the machete. 22.The defendant’s retaliation was totally out of proportion. Clearly, this was premeditated. The machete had a long blade of about 22 inches. This is a kind of dangerous weapon which is not readily available in any ordinary household. It can become a lethal weapon in such a situation. The attack on PW1, 2 and 3 result in them suffered from a number of injuries. All the victims did not have anything to protect themselves. They were defenceless at the material time. 23.PW1 used his right hand to block the attack while PW3 used his right hand to grab the back of the blade and forcefully caused the machete to drop onto the ground. PW1 had a 4 cm laceration on his right palm and 2 cm superficial laceration on his left hand. He was 29 at the material time and was a bartender by occupation. According to the certificate of compensation assessment, he was absent from work for 54 days from the day of the attack to 21 February 2017. He was assessed that the loss of earning capacity permanently caused by the injury was 7 per cent. He received a compensation of $65,280. 24.Since then, he has returned back to the same bar to continue his work as a bartender while PW2 suffered a 5 cm laceration on his forehead with active bleeding, of which he was sutured. He was transferred to the department of neurosurgery of Prince of Wales Hospital for management due to frontal bone fracture. He was discharged on 28 December with follow-up appointments. 25.When the police requested him to take photo of the current status of his scar, he did not have time to do that. This court has been informed that PW2 was no longer required to attend any further follow-up treatment and he suffered no permanent injury except the scar on his face. By looking at the photo, I can see there were 14 stitches across his forehead. It was a very prominent wound. He was a young man of 21 at the material time. The scar will remain on his face for the rest of his life. 26.As to PW3, he had 3 cm laceration on his right forearm and 2 cm laceration on his right thumb. He was discharged after suturing: six stitches on his right forearm and three stitches on his right hand. It is fortunate that PW3 suffered no permanent injury. 27.The incident took place outside the bar, and it was in the early hour of Boxing Day. It must be a terrifying incident for the staff and customers of the bar and any passer-by who happened to be present there. 28.There was no guideline for sentence of this kind of offence. The court will not tolerate attacking another person with a lethal weapon such as a machete, on a dispute over a minor incident, this court will impose a more severe and deterrent sentence. I refer to the case of HKSAR v Wong Luk Sau [2013] 2 HKLRD 201. 29.On the other hand, the defence and the prosecution have submitted altogether six cases to this court for references. I had the opportunity to study them:-
30.As to other four cases, HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat CACC 317/2012, HKSAR v Chan Lek Sun CACC 188/2014, HKSAR v Yuen Wai Kui CACC 280/2004, HKSAR v Lai Ka Lung CACC 136/2005, those are appeals’ cases which were originally heard in the High Court and the facts were more serious than the present one. I therefore do not rely on these cases. 31.With all the information in mind and having considered that the defendant pleaded guilty to the three charges, the injuries suffered by the three victims, the defendant has managed to stay away from trouble since 2007, the defendant acted under the influence of alcohol, and one big machete with 22 inches of blade, I am satisfied that a starting point of 4 years for all the charges is appropriate. With one-third reduction, it comes down to 32 months. I order all the sentences of all the three charges to be run concurrently. Order 32.32 months.
|
Cases cited in this judgment