COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, and one count of attempted robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance. He is committed to this court for sentence.
At 5 am on 7 April 2022, the victim, whilst going to work, stopped outside a shop to smoke. The defendant approached the victim and then used a universal knife to cut the back of the victim’s neck. He then gave a chokehold to the victim from behind before he declared robbery. As the victim felt great pain at his bleeding neck, he struggled forcefully.
After a brief struggle and separation, the defendant demanded for money again. Being agitated, the victim tried to grab hold of the defendant. Eventually, the defendant fled the scene.
About two hours later, the defendant was spotted by patrolling police officers and eventually arrested. A universal knife with bloodstains was found on the defendant.
Upon admission into Tuen Mun Hospital, the victim was found to have sustained a 10 cm laceration over his neck with active bleeding. An emergency operation was performed, and the victim was finally discharged a week later on 14 April 2022.
Photographs presented to the court depicted the horrific injuries that the victim had suffered. The court, however, has been told that the victim, in a nutshell, has not suffered from any permanent injuries.
The defendant is now 47, educated to Form 2 level. Prior to his arrest, he was a part-time mechanic. The defendant also has four previous criminal records, one relating to the use of violence.
Mitigation letters from the defendant and his wife have been produced. I have already read them before the commencement of this hearing. They ask for leniency, essentially.
This is an attempted robbery on an innocent passer-by in an early hour of one morning. In short, the defendant first stabbed the victim before declaring the robbery. The victim was inflicted with severe injuries. An attack on a person’s neck with such a very sharp object would and could potentially cause fatalities. The attack on that day was simply unacceptable. The defendant also gave the victim a chokehold, ie a strangulation in order to immobilise the victim.
The fact that the victim recovered fully without any permanent injuries was, in my view, purely luck. Although the defendant was charged for attempted robbery, in essence, an actual robbery had been carried out. It just happened that the defendant was not able to get hold of any money or any valuable at the end.
In this case, the defendant did not simply display a knife or his weapon. He actually used it with the desire of injuring the victim first and then getting the cash and valuable from the victim afterwards. The attempt took place in the small hours on the morning and, as a result, the victim was hospitalised for over a week.
For Count 1, it was a vicious attack on an innocent civilian. Given the defendant’s past violence record, a notional starting point of 7 years will be adopted. After a plea, the sentence will be reduced to one of 56 months’ imprisonment.
As for Count 2, given the use of violence has been taken care of by the 1st count, a notional starting point of 5 years will be adopted. After a plea, the sentence will be reduced to one of 40 months’ imprisonment.
In view of the matters that I have just described, the two sentences imposed would be ordered to serve consecutively by the defendant. For the two offences the defendant stands convicted, he is therefore sentenced to 96 months’ imprisonment. That is 8 years’ imprisonment.
