HKSAR v. Tsang Sun Ming

DCCC 551/2019

[2019] HKDC 1346

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 551 OF 2019

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

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

2.The offences took place at a flat which the defendant, his wife and his stepdaughter lived in (“the Flat”).

3.The defendant’s wife is the injured victim of charge 1 (“the Wife”) whilst the defendant’s stepdaughter is the injured victim of charge 2 (“the Stepdaughter”).

4.On the day in question the defendant had dinner with the Wife at the Flat at around 4:30 pm, during which 3 cups of Chinese wine were consumed by him.  At around 8:30 pm the Stepdaughter returned to the Flat.  The defendant suddenly became emotional and scolded at both the Wife and the Stepdaughter, asked both of them to move out from the Flat as well as saying that he wanted a divorce.

5.In order to avoid conflict, the Wife asked the Stepdaughter to go downstairs together.  When they were about to leave the Flat, the defendant suddenly grasped the Wife’s hand and pulled her towards the kitchen.  The defendant took a 20-cm-long chopper from the kitchen.  Upon seeing that, the Wife shouted at the Stepdaughter telling the latter to get out of the Flat.  Meanwhile, the Wife was able to free herself from the defendant.  She then rushed towards the front door of the Flat together with the Stepdaughter.  The defendant gave chase and chopped them with the chopper.

6.As a result of the chopping, the Wife suffered lacerations over her right parietal scalp, occipital scalp and right upper back.  As for the Stepdaughter, she suffered a complex left parietal scalp wound with active bleeding and multiple bone fragments, left shoulder laceration and an associated skull fracture.

7.Ms Vivian Wong, on behalf of the defendant, made a detailed submission both in writing as well as supplemented orally today.

8.This court is told that the defendant is now aged 61.  He received primary education in the mainland.  He had been working as a chef for more than 30 years.  

9.The first marriage of the defendant ended in the year 2009.  Two years later, in 2011, the defendant married the Wife in China.  This was also the second marriage of the Wife.  The Wife has a daughter (ie the Stepdaughter) and a son.  The three of them moved to Hong Kong in August 2018 and lived with the defendant at the Flat.  The relationship between the defendant and the Stepdaughter was originally good.  However, shortly after the said moved to Hong Kong in 2018, there were consistent conflicts between the two of them, most of those conflicts concerned with the Stepdaughter having no intention to find a job.

10.On the day in question, the defendant was agitated as a result of having consumed the alcohol during dinner.  He had a quarrel with the Wife and the Stepdaughter, with strong words exchanged between them.  The defendant was not able to control his emotion.  The defendant did not want the Wife to leave the Flat, so he gave chase after her and physically pulled her back to stop her from leaving.  It was at that juncture that the two of them reached near the entrance of the kitchen, where the chopper was placed nearby.  The defendant then picked up the chopper out of momentary impulse and used it to injure the Wife and the Stepdaughter.

11.Ms Wong submitted on behalf of the defendant that the offences were not premeditated but spontaneous.  The weapon used was a household item which was placed near the entrance of the kitchen.  The defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time.  Both the Wife and the Stepdaughter did not suffer long term or permanent disability.

12.Ms Wong also referred this court to the authorities of HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat, CACC 317/2012, HKSAR v Lee Hon Shun, CACC 626/1999, HKSAR v Roka Sijan, CACC 281/2017 HKSAR v Chen Jinhui CACC 325/2017.

13.This court accepts Ms Wong’s submission that the attacks were not premeditated and did not stem from revenge on the part of the defendant.

14.This court also accepts that there was no long term domestic tension between the defendant on the one hand and the two victims on the other.

15.This court further accepts that the chopper itself was a household item which was placed near the entrance of the kitchen and the defendant was agitated at the time under the influence of alcohol.

16.Further, the defendant’s guilty pleas not only demonstrated his remorse but also resulted in sparing the victims in coming to court to testify and relive the ordeal.

17.Further still, the prosecution confirms that both the Wife and the Stepdaughter did not suffer any long term or permanent disability as a result of the attacks.  Mr Ho, counsel on-fiat, informed this court that both victims had recovered well.

18.Having said that however, the court simply cannot ignore the brutality of the attacks on the Wife and the Stepdaughter.

19.The Wife and the Stepdaughter both received multiple chop wounds.  Most of those wounds were on the back of their respective body which suggest that the defendant was attacking both of them from behind.

20.Moreover, of a more alarming nature, is the fact that some of those chops apparently had landed on the respective head region of the Wife and the Stepdaughter.  It was, to a certain extent, sheer luck on the part of the victims that they did not suffer any long term or permanent disability.

21.This is obviously a sad case.

22.A moment of madness from the defendant – someone who was supposed to protect and love his family – now resulted in tragedy.

23.There is no sentencing guideline for cases of wounding with intent.  Apart from authorities submitted by Ms Wong, this court has also considered two authorities with domestic violence complex, namely HKSAR v Fan Tak Wan , CACC 10/2007 and HKSAR v Yu Koon Mam, 253/2007.

24.Having considered the circumstances in which the defendant committed the offences in the instant case, submissions made by the defence as well as the relevant legal principles, this court is of the view that the appropriate starting point for each of Charges 1 and 2 is one of 4 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

25.The defendant is entitled to the full 1/3 sentencing discount in view of his timely plea.

26.For each of Charges 1 & 2, therefore, the defendant is sentenced to 3 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

27.Having considered the totality principle and the nexus between the two charges, this court will order that the sentence of both charges to run concurrently.

Order

28.For Charge 1 the defendant is sentenced to 3 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

29.For Charge 2 the defendant is sentenced to 3 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

30.The sentences of Charges 1 & 2 are to run concurrently, making the total sentence term of 3 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.