HKSAR v. Yung Kwun Fai
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 394/2021 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 9 July 2021.
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of wounding with intend, contrary to section 17(a) of the offences against Person Ordinance, Cap 212.
|
DCCC 394/2021 [2021] HKDC 1140 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 394 OF 2021 ________________________
________________________
________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ________________________ 1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of wounding with intend, contrary to section 17(a) of the offences against Person Ordinance, Cap 212. Summary of Facts 2.At all material time , the defendant was a worker at the Chun Wo Construction site in Tuen Mun while the victim was the supervisor. 3.On 9 December, 2020, they had a dispute over work issues. 4.At 4:31 pm, PW1 went to the site by car while PW2 was the driver. PW1 was at the front passenger seat. 5.As the car drove past the defendant slowly, the defendant suddenly stabbed PW1 by inserting his hand through the window. 6.PW1 fended off the attack with both hands, the defendant kept on stabbing PW1 on the chest and limbs for 3 to 4 seconds. 7.PW2 closed the car window immediately, but the defendant kept hitting the car window glass with a safety helmet. 8.The police arrived at the scene, the defendant was arrested. He admitted under caution that he stabbed PW1 with a fruit knife several times out of emotional impulse. He was angry with PW1 as they had a dispute over work. The defendant went to the site to take a fruit knife and waited for the arrival of PW1. Criminal record 9.The defendant had 4 previous convictions, 3 are related to violence offences. Mitigation 10.The defendant is 34 years of age, he was born in China and came to live in Hong Kong since 1996. 11.He is still single and lives with his mother. His parents divorced. His sister and mother are in court today to show support to him. 12.At the time of the incident, he worked in Chun Woo Construction site as a stock keeper. PW1 was one of the 5 supervisors of the site. 13.The defence had penned down the details of the dispute leading to this unfortunate incident. 14.In a gist, there was a verbal argument with foul language as to the storage/protection of some wooden materials being kept in the site. 15.The verbal exchanged escalated when the victim demanded him to complete the job by finding some canvas to cover the wooden material before the defendant called off the day. 16.It was 4:30 pm at that time. He was due to finish work at 5 pm. The defendant had to sit for a job related exam after work. 17.There was more foul language exchanged before the victim came to the site. The defendant expected that the victim might come to punish him because the victim spoke to him in a “furious voice”. 18.The defendant was also very angry and agitated at that time. That explained for his attack on the victim for about 7 times within 3 to 4 seconds. He could not control himself, he continued to hit the window with his helmet for about 10 times. 19.He is now remorseful for committing the present offence. Sentence 20.As rightly pointed out in mitigation that there is no sentencing tariff for this type of offence. 21.The defendant referred me to 2 cases:-
22.In HKSAR v Hau Ping Chuen, the Court of Appeal said that the usual range of sentence was between 3 to 12 years. 23.In HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat, the Court of Appeal had listed out a number of relevant factors to be considered in determining the gravity of the offence and culpability of the offender. 24.As stated in the summary of facts that there was a work dispute between the defendant and the victim. The defendant was under pressure to complete the job before he was allowed to call off. On the other hand, the defendant had to attend an examination. 25.The defendant could not find the necessary canvas to cover the wooden material in the site. 26.It might appear to be a simple job, but it was a construction site in Tuen Mun. The defendant became very agitated in such circumstances especially when the victim spoke with a fierce tone and foul language. 27.The defendant had been provoked to a certain extend. 28.The victim told the defendant to stay as he would turn up at the site. That did not help to calm down the situation. 29.While the defendant expected the victim to turn up, he went back to the site. 30.The defence said that it was not premeditated, but the question to ask, why did he has to return to the site to bring a knife with him to wait for the arrival of the victim. 31.There was certain degree of premeditation as he planned on the attack of the victim with a fruit knife when he arrived. 32.The attack lasted for about 3 to 4 seconds, the defendant attacked the victim with all his might. The force he applied on the attack was a big one, the knife was broken into pieces. 33.The police found the handle of the knife on the ground. It was about 4 inches long. 34.Since the victim was sitting on the passenger seat, the most serious part of his body being attacked was on the left side. 35.The victim suffered seven deep lacerations at the left anterior chest wall, left posterior axillary fold, left arm and forearm, distal right wrist and right thigh. Computed tomography of the thorax revealed skin laceration and subcutaneous emphysema at the left chest wall and lateral shoulder region. 36.During the follow up on 19 January, 2021, PW1 still complained of residual right hand dorsum numbness. He is undergoing a course of rehabilitation of physiotherapy and occupational therapy. 37.I accepted that he was totally at rage even when the window was closed, he continued to hit the window with the helmet. 38.To this extend, I considered that a starting point of 4 years to be appropriated, reduced to 2 years 8 months after 1/3 discount.
|