COURT: The jury convicted the defendant of one count of wounding with intent by a unanimous verdict. The victim and
the defendant were neighbours in a hostel for single senior citizens at Un Hong House, Un Chau Estate. Shortly before the incident in February 2018, the victim saw the defendant coming out from his room. He suspected that the defendant had stolen from him. They had an argument.
The defendant rushed back to his room to fetch a chopper. The victim ran to the lobby, intending to inform the warden. Subsequently at the lobby, the defendant caught up with the victim and chopped the victim by his scalp for two to three times. They then had a struggle. The defendant chopped the victim’s back and leg. Eventually, the victim snatched the chopper from the defendant and threw it away. During the fight for the chopper, the defendant injured his right eye.
Later on, the defendant retrieved the chopper. The defendant pinned down the victim and tried to chop the victim again. At this moment, the victim asked the defendant to stop. The defendant then stopped and walked back to his room.
The victim had four lacerations at the scalp with fractured frontal and parietal bone. He had deep laceration of both hands. The defendant sustained a full-thickness laceration of the cornea with loss of iris and the lens. Defendant’s right eye became blind because of the injury.
Defendant is 66. He was born in Guangdong and sneaked into Hong Kong in 1979. He had no education. He worked as a construction site worker, dim sum worker and factory worker. He was able to support himself and his parents who were in the mainland.
Since 1992, the defendant had several admissions in psychiatric hospitals with auditory hallucination and aggression. He was diagnosed schizophrenia later on. He is on long-term drug treatment.
Defendant has three previous convictions. He was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in 1992 and imprisoned for 4 months. He was last fined $2,000 for unlawful possession of dutiable goods.
Shortly after the incident on 23 February 2018, two psychiatrists examined the defendant. Both psychiatrists found the defendant mentally stable with no signs of relapse. He only needed outpatient management. The defendant was fit to plead.
In January 2019, about six weeks before this trial, two psychiatrists examined the defendant again. They found that the defendant had some signs of relapse due to poor drug compliance. However, both psychiatrists found him emotionally stable and would pose no imminent risk to anyone. He needed outpatient treatment only.
In the background report, the probation officer points out that the defendant is regarded as decent, co-operative and compassionate by the staff of Un Hong House and his friends. This incident appears to be out of character given the defendant’s disciplined decent living schedule.
The victim suffered no permanent injuries albeit there are prominent scars in his hands and scalp. On the contrary, the defendant lost complete eyesight in his right eye. There is cataract in his left eye. His quality of life would certainly be substantially affected.
Having heard the evidence of the victim during the trial, I do not think he was forthcoming. This is especially so when he recounted how the defendant’s eye was injured. He gave different versions of the cause which were inconsistent with his witness statement. In my view, the chemist report on bloodstains on the chopper and the medical report on the eye injuries of the defendant were inconsistent with the causes of the eye injury to the defendant as suggested by the victim.
On the other hand, the defendant was inarticulate and blunt. He was not impressive in the witness-box. The defendant, however, admitted it was an act of revenge as the victim allegedly attacked him first. That said, I am not seeking to go behind the verdict of the jury in the process of sentencing. In any event, the cause of the incident was upon a suspicion which turned out to be trivial. The incident happened in a spur of the moment. I would take a lenient view of the defendant’s conduct.
I have considered whether the defendant’s eye injury amounts to a mitigating factor. In that regard, I have considered authorities: R v Chak Shui Chung [1989] 2 HKLR 81, Yip Kai Foon v HKSAR reported in FAMC 35 and 36 of 1999, SJ v Sukhmander Singh CAAR No 5/1999 and SJ v Lau Sin Ting CAAR No 3/2010.
The Court of Final Appeal in Yip Kai Foon case accepted that very serious injuries, even where suffered in the course of criminal activity, can be taken into account to reduce the sentence. In deciding whether the sentence should be reduced for this reason, all the circumstances of the case would have to be considered.
I have also considered the cases submitted by the prosecution, CACC No 10/2017 and CAAR No 12/2007. While they are good references but sentencing of wounding cases is highly facts-sensitive. Given the peculiar circumstances of this case, I take the starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment. I give the defendant 1-year reduction for his permanent eye injury as an act of mercy. The defendant has to serve 2 years’ imprisonment in total.
In the background report, the probation officer mentioned that the defendant’s placement at Un Hong House was cancelled or forfeited because of his remand in custody leading to an arrear of rental. I would like to refer the defendant’s case to the Social Welfare Department so that this matter could be followed up as soon as practicable.