COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17 of the Offences against the Persons Ordinance, Chapter 212 and is committed to this court for sentence.
Summary of Facts reveals the followings.
In the evening on 19 October 2019, the victim was distributing political leaflets with other people at a subway near the entrance of Tai Po Market MTR Station. All of a sudden, the defendant who was holding a fruit knife charged towards the victim and attempted to slash the victim’s neck. The victim then struggled with the defendant. During the course of the struggle, the victim’s neck was cut by the fruit knife on two to three occasions.
The victim tried to flee. The defendant nevertheless, chased after him. After running for his life for about 50 metres, the victim fell and the defendant caught up with the victim. The defendant then pressed the victim onto the ground and stabbed the victim’s abdomen twice again with the fruit knife. After the assault, the defendant fled and boarded a taxi whereas the victim lied on the ground and bled profusely from his neck and abdomen.
On board of the taxi, the defendant told the taxi driver that he had killed someone and requested the driver to drive him to police station. The defendant then asked the taxi driver if it was possible to go to Lo Wu where he would be safe. To that, the defendant was told that Lo Wu was a prohibited zone. Knowing that the defendant still had a knife, the taxi driver courageously drove the defendant to Tai Po Police Station. He even calmly led the defendant into the report room. Inside the report room, the defendant was subdued and arrested by police officers.
Under caution, the defendant said “I can’t tolerate these people damaging Hong Kong, therefore I used knife to cut him.”
In two subsequent video interviews, the defendant further stated that he came to Hong Kong the day before and purchased the fruit knife for HK$13. He kept the knife on his body. When he was at the Tai Po Market MTR Station, he had a dispute with people who were distributing leaflets and posting political posters. After one cigarette, he felt he had to stab someone. As a result, he returned to the subway near the Tai Po Market MTR Station and randomly chose the victim for the attack.
The victim was rushed to the hospital. Two laceration wounds were found on the posterior of his neck. One stab wound around two centimetres with upward trajectory was found over the left upper abdomen. Another stab wound, much larger, around 5 centimetres again with upward trajectory penetrated all layers of the abdominal wall into the abdominal cavity with small bile exposed was also found over the right abdomen. Emergency laparotomy was performed. Close to one litre of blood was drained. The victim was moved to the Intensive Care Unit and finally discharged one month later on 18 November 2019.
Pictures taken by the Hospital Authority show the horrific injuries sustained by the victim. His physical injuries led to permanent scarring over the wound size in the abdomen.
According to the medical report, although there was no obvious impairment to the patient activities of daily life and functional status, the injury and the operation increased his risk of incisional hernia and/or adhesive intestinal obstruction in the future.
The victim’s physical conditions on the face of the medical report have been improving, his psychological conditions have not. Victim impact report prepared on 13 April 2021 showed that he had suffered not only physical pain and impairment but also severe post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. Apparently, the post-traumatic stress disorder and depression had affected his whole life and psychological function.
According to the clinical psychologist, the victim was in great need of social welfare, psychiatric and psychological assistance and intervention. It was anticipated that he had a very very long journey for his rehabilitation.
Physically, the victim was in need of painkiller daily in order to make his living manageable. His neck was unable to turn within normal range. His wounds at the abdomen were still painful according to the psychologist report.
Psychologically, the victim had been suffering from nightmares every night. In order to avoid nightmare, he became insomnia. The victim also had visual and auditory hallucinations and suicidal thoughts. The victim made several suicidal attempts as he found life became meaningless, hopeless, and painful. The victim was obviously in stress and in tears when being interviewed by the clinical psychologist. In short, it is manifestly clear that the victim is still suffering from very serious psychological trauma stemming from the attack.
The life of a very young man has been ruined. This is just one of the senseless episode of violence that took place in Hong Kong during 2019. Whatever one’s political belief, the use of violence must be condemned. There is simply no place in our society. Violence does not and will not resolve any political differences, it only escalates conflicts resulting in fatality and casualty.
Turning to the defendant. He is single, now aged 24, a cook from Guangxi. He is the eldest son of the family. He worked as a cook prior to his arrest with a monthly income of Renminbi 4,000. As the eldest son, of course, he contributed financially to his family back in Guangxi. The arrest of the defendant inevitably caused financial hardship to his family. His father has written a long letter for me to read and pleaded for leniency on the defendant’s behalf. I understand the father’s wish but I -- unfortunately, I cannot accede to his request.
There is no sentencing guideline for this offence. Wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm is a very serious offence with the maximum penalty being life imprisonment. Its serious nature is reflected by the statement of principle upheld by the Court of Appeal in Lau Cheong v HKSAR that the mens rea for wounding with intent is a sufficient mens rea for the offence of murder in cases where the victim dies.
While there are no tariffs or sentencing guidelines for this offence, the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Hung Kar Chun stated that a range of 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment for the usual type of wounding with intent. The courts have often in of the view that embarking upon a comparative analysis of other cases is of little use as the sentences are case and fact-specific.
In HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat, the Court of Appeal provided a non-exhaustive list of factors to which a court would have regard in determining the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the offender. Those factors include, inter alia, the extent to which the assault was premeditated, the reasons or motivation underlying the assault upon the victim, the mental or emotional state of the assailant at the time of the assault, the type of weapons employed, the level of force or aggression and the persistence with which the assault was pressed on, the injuries caused to the victim as well as the effect of the assault upon the victim and those close to him or her. In particular, the court also highlighted that the factor of primary importance was the intent of the offender to cause the victim really serious bodily harm.
On the facts of this case, I found the culpability of the defendant to be at the upper end of the scale for sentencing because of the following reasons.
Despite the fact that the victim was randomly chosen, the attack was a premeditated one. The defendant came to Hong Kong a day before and immediately on his arrival, purchased a knife and carried it with him throughout.
On the day in question, he went to Tai Po Market MTR Station deliberately. I do not accept what he said about him unable to purchase any train ticket back to Mong Kok. That would not and could not happen in Hong Kong. On the day in question, he could walk away after the dispute, yet after smoking, he returned to the subway and senselessly committed the offence on a defenceless young man.
After slashing the neck of the victim, the defendant continued to chase the victim for 50 to 100 metres. The defendant then pressed the victim onto the ground and stabbed him twice in his abdomen. In other words, the offence was not committed in a spur of moment. The level of aggression was high. The defendant was also persistent in his attack. The intention as manifested in his caution was clear. It was to kill.
I have already outlined the extent of injuries that the victim had been suffering. In short, the injuries were very serious. The negative impact was far-reaching. The victim undoubtedly has to endure the physical pain for a long period of time, possibly the rest of his life.
As I have said on the last occasion, it is the psychological adverse impact that, in my opinion, is the most difficult aspect to treat. After suffering from this kind of tragic event, I can only hope that with the assistance of the psychologist, his family and the social worker, the victim can go through the dark cloud as soon as possible. I sincerely hope that he can have a speedy recovery in particular psychologically.
Having considered all the circumstances and the relevant factors in this case, I am of the view that the appropriate starting point for this case is one of 10 years’ imprisonment. A 6-month credit will be given to the defendant for his voluntary surrender to the police.
As such, for the offence the defendant stands convicted, he is sentenced to 6 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
Before the conclusion of the hearing, I ought to mention that the society should also say thank you to the taxi driver who acted calmly and courageously. Without his assistance, it might take a long time for the apprehension of the defendant. So he should be commended for his bravery.