Read the full judgment text of CACC 000246/1992 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 20 January 1995 before Macdougall VP, Penlington JA, Barnett J.
Criminal law – sentencing – throwing sulphuric acid with intent to disfigure or do grievous bodily harm – applicant married wife in 1984 – marriage deteriorated from 1990 – wife formed relationship with another man – on 25 April 1991 applicant poured 96% sulphuric acid (toilet cleanser) over wife's face in circular motion – wife suffered full thickness burns to face, ears, neck, chest, arm and shoulder, requiring tracheostomy and extensive skin grafting – conviction after jury trial – whether 13-year sentence excessive – whether deterrent sentence appropriate for first offender – whether starting point of 15 years per Attorney-General v Au Chi Tak (1987) HKLR 1121 appropriate – court holds offence is one of most sickening to come before courts – victim scarred physically and mentally for life – maximum penalty is life imprisonment – strongly deterrent sentence inevitably called for – only most exceptional circumstances can offender avoid long term of imprisonment – good character, clear record, remorse, family circumstances, and principle against deterrent sentences for first offenders do not constitute exceptional circumstances – starting point of 15 years appropriate – credit for good character and clear record warranted – sentence of 13 years entirely proper – application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal issues: Whether a 13-year sentence for throwing sulphuric acid with intent to disfigure or do grievous bodily harm was manifestly excessive
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed; sentence of 13 years' imprisonment upheld
Cited by 2 cases