The facts that had been admitted show that on the day of the attack on 6 November 2019, the victim of the 2nd count, Dr Ho, was holding an election campaign booth on the pavement in Wu Chui Road, Tuen Mun, New Territories, and that is a public area.
At about 8.15 am, the victim had arrived at the scene and started distributing leaflets to passer-bys. At 8.40 am, the defendant approached him with a bunch of flowers in his hands and told the victim that he was an avid supporter and wanted to take a photograph with him and the victim agreed. Then, the defendant presented the flowers and on the pretext of getting his camera, quickly retrieved a 33-centimetre knife with a 20-centimetre blade from his bag and used it to stab the victim on his chest. And this was all recorded on the video recording. And this caused the victim’s chest to bleed.
The victim’s bodyguard, Mr Cheung, who is the victim in the 3rd charge assisted in subduing the defendant. And because the defendant did not let go of his knife in his hand, he also injured Mr Cheung in the chest and the left forearm. Now, this was all captured on video.
The matter was reported to the police. Now, police investigation revealed that there was some pre-planning on the part of the defendant because according to CCTV footages later recovered, the defendant had gone to the scene few days prior to the day of the attack. And in fact, he was lingering in the vicinity of the victim’s election booth on 4 and 5 November. And on 4 November, the defendant actually was seen taking photographs of the victim’s election campaign activities and he had approached the booth with some flowers and asked the volunteers whether the victim would appear. So there was pre-planning involved in this attack.
Subsequent to the arrest of the defendant, a search of his shoulder bag, amongst other things, was another knife found inside with a 15-centimetre blade.
It was fortuitous that the victim of the 2nd charge did not sustain more serious injuries because the attack on his chest could easily had been fatal. He had laceration at the lower sternal area and he had hematoma at the left parasternal region or at the mid sternal body with an oblique wound. And there was a contrast pooling in the portovenous phase inside the chest wall hematoma, which was suggestive of active bleeding. And adjacent to the hematoma, there was a mild breakage of anterior bony cortex at the mid-sternal body, which can represent fracture line related to recent injury. His laceration was repaired and he stayed in hospital for two days and was discharged.
As far as Mr Cheung’s injuries were concerned, he is the victim of the 3rd charge and he sustained a laceration wound over the left subcostal region and a 2-centimetre abrasion wound over his left forearm. His laceration wound was sutured and he was discharged on the same day.
This was a senseless and most horrific attack on a citizen going about his legitimate business on the streets of Hong Kong. This calls for a major deterrence sentence because this is not the sort of violence that a civil society such as Hong Kong should endure. And whatever the motivation, whether it be political, etc, does not excuse such violence on our streets.
Whilst it is true that from the mitigation bundles submitted by the defence that the defendant is seen to be a mild and filial son and liked by many of his contemporaries and teachers, etc, and also there was a letter from the deacon in prison who met the defendant, it was not an act which should be condoned. It was abhorrent to most members of society when it happened.
Mr Ma on behalf of the defendant had said everything he could possibly say on behalf of the defendant. The defendant has a clear record and he has sort of never been known to be in trouble at any time. He is aged 31. He had up to university level education. He was unemployed at the time. He had suffered mood disorder in the past. Well, none of that actually excuses what he has done.
A victim impact report was called for and as Mr Ma pointed out, it was fortuitous that the impact was limited on the victim. And this was, as the clinical psychologist said in his conclusion, must be due to his psychological resilience of the victim. Although in the sort of month that followed this attack, the victim had also suffered some fear, worry because it was a very horrific attack on him and, fortuitously, he did not suffer more serious or life-threatening injuries. So there was some stress but because of his self-reported personality straits, which is his optimism and seeing negative events as challenges, he was able to overcome and return to normal. Although he said to the psychologist that he still remains hyper vigilant and more alert when he is out in public. So it is not something that is easily forgotten by either victims.
Mr Ma has prayed in aid the case of HKSAR v Liu Guosheng, which is HCCC 225/2020, which is a sentence also on wounding section 17 which has a political motivation. And Mr Ma has submitted that perhaps this would be helpful to my sentencing in the present offence.
As has been observed, there is no sentencing guidelines for wounding section 17. Each case has to be looked at on its own facts. Whilst sentences in other cases may be of some assistance, I generally do not find it helpful because each case is different. Each defendant is different. The only case which I find helpful is the case of HKSAR v Jatinder Singh, which is a Court of Appeal case in 2019, reported at volume 2 Hong Kong Law Report and Digest.
And in that case, the Court of Appeal actually was helpful, in that they endorsed the sentencing guidelines which was pointed out in HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [2013] 6 HKC 225. In the headnote 3 of the appeal case of Jatinder Singh, the Court of Appeal noted that there were no sentencing guidelines for offences of wounding with intent. The factors relevant to sentencing included the extent to which the assault was premeditated; the reasons or motivation underlying the assault; the mental or emotional state of the assailant at the time; whether alcohol or drugs contributed to the assailant’s actions; whether the assailant acted alone or as part of a group; the type of weapons employed; the level of force or aggression and the persistence with which the assault was committed; the injuries to the victim and the effect of the assault on the victim and those close to him or her.
And in that case, this was a premeditated and unprovoked vengeance attack because of the unrequited love which the defendant had for the victim.
And as I said, the facts in each case are very different and the court in sentencing has to consider all the factors in this case. It was clear that the defendant in this case acted alone. He had a lot of premeditation because, as I said, several days before the actual attack, he had actually what we normally called “case the joint” where he was going to launch the attack. And so it took a bit of planning and also to work himself up to the attack. There was no provocation whatsoever from the victim of this attack and he had gone to the scene with two knives. And so as observed in the same case by the Court of Appeal in Jatinder Singh, at paragraph 58, the Court of Appeal said that:
“Wounding with intent is a very serious offence which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Its serious nature was further confirmed in the statement of principle, which is upheld in HKSAR v Lau Cheong, that mens rea for the offence was a sufficient mens rea for the offence of murder in case the victim died. Although the usual range of sentence for this type of offence is between 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment, it is incumbent upon the court to assess the culpability of the offender to determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed.”
And I had already observed, the attack was vicious. It was fortuitous that the victim dodged and the injuries were not fatal. It was a very sharp knife. And so because he was doing his legitimate business on the streets of Hong Kong, it made him particularly vulnerable. And so again, fortuitously, the attack has left not very many serious psychological impact on him. And the pre-planning was meticulous and so although he acted alone, however, this was something which was to be viewed as very serious in the way that a deterrent sentence should be made because this act can never be condoned or excused.
So I therefore consider that in light of the seriousness of this attack, a starting point sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment should be imposed. I agree with Mr Ma, however, that the discount should be one-quarter because once the prosecution added the alternative count of wounding with intent, the defendant had indicated his willingness to plea to that. So I will give him that one-quarter discount, thus reducing the sentence on Count 2 to 9 years’ imprisonment.
In relation to the 3rd count, again, although the injuries was not very serious, Mr Cheung was discharged on the same day, however, when the defendant was wrestled to the ground, he still did not give up. He still held the knife in his hand and waved it about and caused the injuries on Mr Cheung. So I would adopt a sentence of 4 years’ starting point, reducing it by one-quarter to 1 year.
Now, I have to consider the totality principle. And in view of the totality principle, this was also...
(Submission re maximum sentence of section 19)
So in that case, it will be 3 years, one-quarter discount would give me 9 months from 36, so 27 months. And that will be served, as I said, the totality principle it happened as one incident, so I will make the sentence on the 3rd count concurrent to the sentence on the 2nd count which would make it 9 years’ imprisonment.
All right, so the defendant will go to prison for 9 years.