HKSAR v. Lee Chun Lok

HCCC 114/2021

[2021] HKCFI 2395

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 114 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

____________________________________

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

____________________________________

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate to one charge of wounding with intent and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence.

(Discussion re translation)

In consideration, I have taken into account the whole circumstances of the case, in particular the nature and facts of the case, personal background of the defendant and mitigation put forward on his behalf.

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. The person whom the defendant wounded, Chan, has been the boyfriend of the defendant’s mother since seven years prior to the incident. They had been living in the same house for about two years. The mother had divorced soon after the birth of the defendant.

On the day of the incident, when the defendant returned home his mother and Chan accused him of having kept the air conditioner in his room on, causing water dripping on the wall. The defendant and Chan had a heated argument. The defendant said some foul words. Chan responded by saying to the defendant, “Do you believe I will find 20 to 30 persons to come to hit you?” Chan even went to the kitchen and picked up a chopper. He pointed the chopper at the defendant close to his face and said to the defendant, “Do you believe I will chop you to death?” He also complained against the defendant for not contributing to the household expenses.

The mother intervened and separated them. The defendant went to his room and Chan went to the bathroom. The defendant then picked the chopper from the kitchen and kept it in his room. When Chan came out from the bathroom, he used the chopper to wound him.

Police soon arrived. The defendant was arrested. Under caution, he admitted to have chopped Chan with a chopper and he did so out of impulse as Chan had claimed to use a chopper to chop him. In a subsequent interview, the defendant again admitted the offence and said he was angry about the bad attitude of Chan towards him. He said he felt relieved after chopping Chan as he had withstood him for many years. He said he initially only wanted to keep the chopper away from Chan who had threatened him but when he overheard the conversation between his mother and Chan, he became angry.

Chan suffered the following injuries: 4 cm occipital scalp laceration; 2 cm deep left shoulder laceration with active bleeding over posterior aspect, it was deep to scapuloacromial joint; fracture at tip of left acromion; and two lacerations at the left hand over dorsum.

When Chan was admitted to the hospital, his movement of left upper limb was limited by pain. Open reduction and screw fixation to the left acromion tip was performed and a shoulder immobiliser was given with rehabilitation plan initiated. The court was informed by the prosecution that there is no indication that the victim is suffering from permanent or long-term disability as a result of the injuries.

The defendant is 18 years of age. He received education up to Form 4 and had then completed a one-year training course in the Institute of Construction. He had worked as a decoration worker and a waiter. He was unemployed at the time of the offence. He did not have any previous criminal conviction records.

Learned counsel for the defence, Mr Wong, stressed that the defendant is in full remorse. The defendant was co-operative with the police all along and had made frank admission without hesitation. He pleaded guilty before a magistrate.

Mr Wong also asked the court to take into account that the defendant has just reached the age of 18 at the time of the offence as well as the background relationship within the household and the special circumstances leading to the incident. He informed the court that there had been long-term tension between the defendant and Chan since they started to live together. The defendant felt he was treated unfairly and his mother had been putting undue pressure on him to get along with Chan.

The incident took place during the pandemic which has caused the defendant to earn much less. His mother had been complaining unfairly against him that he was not doing enough in making contribution to the family. On the day, they wrongly accused him for not turning off the air conditioner. After the initial argument, despite the brutality of Chan, his mother did not stand by him. The way the mother later talked with Chan as if nothing had happened stirred up his anger and in an explosion of emotion he committed the offence.

Mr Wong asked the court to accept that the defendant is in full remorse and be lenient in sentencing him. The defence produced a letter of the defendant in which he set out how he came to this foolish act and expressed remorse. There are also letters from the mother and an aunt of the defendant. Both said the defendant is a young man of good nature and plead leniency on his behalf.

There is no tariff for this type of offence. In sentencing, the court has to consider the whole of the relevant circumstances. This offence is, by its nature, a very serious one as it is committed with intention of inflicting grievous bodily harm on the victim. Such an intent can lead to very serious injuries of the victim or even the most extreme consequence of death. An assailant intending to inflict this level of harm may not be able to control or even foresee the consequence to the victim of his act. Generally speaking, there is a need of deterrence, both general and individual.

In the present case, the defendant committed the offence alone. He used a chopper which is a lethal weapon when used this way. That said, I have been told that the chopper is a relatively small one with a blade of about 10 cm. I note that the chopper was aimed at the back of the head of Chan. This was an act capable of causing very serious consequence. Chan was also wounded on his left shoulder and hand. The injuries show he had been assaulted with quite heavy force. The injuries Chan suffered were substantial. It is lucky that there does not seem to be long-term impact on him.

The attack in the present case might not be regarded as persistent, but the defendant did not stop until his mother interfered and took over the chopper from him. The psychological impact on Chan as well as on the mother cannot be lightly ignored. At the same time it seems that the mother has forgiven the defendant.

There is a domestic context in this case. However, violence should not be regarded as an acceptable way of dealing with personal or domestic issues. I accept that there was no ulterior evil motive on the part of the defendant behind the attack. I accept there was little premeditation despite I have reservation in accepting that the defendant kept the chopper for the purpose he asserted. I also accept that the defendant was affected by the long-term tension between Chan and him and the offence was committed shortly after a heated argument during which the defendant had been threatened with the very same chopper.

I further accept that the defendant had committed the present offence in an explosion of emotion. I also take into account the relatively young age of the defendant and also that this was the first time he has ever committed any offence.

In all the circumstances, having particular regard to the background, what triggered the incident and everything said on the defendant’s behalf, I adopt a starting point of 3 years and 9 months.

The defendant had a clear record before. He pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and I accept that he is remorseful. For this, he is entitled to have a one-third discount. Having considered the whole circumstances, including the ably presented mitigation submission by Mr Wong, I am of the view that this is the extent of discount the defendant is entitled to.

The defendant, please stand up. For the reasons I have said, I sentence you to an imprisonment term of 2½ years.