HKSAR v. Yim Chi Kwan

Read the full judgment text of DCCC 775/2020 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 29 April 2021.

1. The defendant has been convicted after trial of the offence of attempting to commit assault occasioning actual bodily harm. I do understand that he had offered to plead to the substantive offence at an earlier occasion and I do that take into account when determining the level of sentence for this.

Cited by 1 case

Case No.DCCC 775/2020[2021] HKDC 634
Court
District Court
Date29 Apr 2021
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

DCCC 775/2020

[2021] HKDC 634

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 775 OF 2020

________________________

  HKSAR  
  v  
  Yim Chi-kwan  

________________________

Before: HH Judge Casewell
Date: 29 April 2021
Present: Mr James McGowan, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Oliver Howell Davies, instructed by Wong & Co, assigned by DLA, for the defendant
Offence: Attempting to commit assault occasioning actual bodily harm (有意圖而襲擊他人致造成身體傷害)

________________________

Reasons for Sentence

________________________

1.The defendant has been convicted after trial of the offence of attempting to commit assault occasioning actual bodily harm. I do understand that he had offered to plead to the substantive offence at an earlier occasion and I do that take into account when determining the level of sentence for this.

2.The defendant is, on his antecedents, shown to be aged 35.  He was unemployed at the time of his arrest.  He has obviously in the past had a problem with drug addiction.  Whether that still is the case because he has been in custody since June, I do not know.  As far as his previous convictions are concerned, there are no similar convictions, they are not relevant.  He has had serious problems with drug trafficking and drug possession which has led to lengthy sentences of imprisonment and sentences of Drug Addiction Treatment Centre as late as 2018.  However, those sentences are not relevant to this particular charge.

3.As far as the offence is concerned, it has large elements of being what are often described as being a domestic offence.  It is a case involving a suspicion of a relationship of a lady who obviously that had a relationship with the defendant in the past.

4.The fluid he had purchased as part of this enterprise, as I have already outlined, was merely an irritant, so could never have caused any particularly serious harm.  However, the offence is serious in that anyone who takes these bottles of fluid and throws them towards another person is taking considerable risk with that action and is also putting the people who see it and are the subjects of the assault in considerable fear.

5.Taking into account the defendant’s earlier offer to admit the essential facts of this case and the overall nature of the offence, what I shall do is sentence the defendant to a term of imprisonment of 12 months’ imprisonment for this offence.  That will be the sentence of this court.

(Discussion re time already served)

6.Well, the sentence on the warrant be one of 8 months’ imprisonment.  That is what I will sign.

  (T Casewell)
  District Judge

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under DCCC 775/2020