Ng Wing-lam v. The Queen

CACC000299/1982

Headnote

Sentence : acid throwing : 10 years

upheld : aged 22 : victim unconnected.

BETWEEN

-----

Coram: McMullin, V.-P., Li and Silke JJ.A.

Date: 24 June 1982

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Silke J.A.:

1. The Applicant pleaded guilty to a charge that he did, on the 11th October 1981, unlawfully and maliciously throw corrosive fluid at one Chan Chi Shing with intent to do grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment.

2. He applied for leave to appeal against sentence and was refused on the 13th May. He renewed that application on the 19th May and appears before us by reason of that renewal.

3. On the 11th October Mr. Chan, who is the owner of a restaurant, was going up the staircase to the restaurant at about ten past seven in the morning. As he did so he felt liquid splashed on his face. Having had dealings with acid before he recognised it for what it was. A foki in the restaurant attempted to assist him by putting his head in a fish tank to wash the acid off and then he was immediately taken to hospital.

4. The Applicant, who is aged 22, was chased from the scene and caught. He had had a red mug filled with nitric acid which he used to splash Mr. Chan. There were acid marks upon the Applicant's clothes and one spot on his hand upon his arrest. He had thrown his red mug away.

5. In mitigation at the trial and it was submitted on his behalf that he was jealous of an elderly man who had taken his place in his lover's affections. It was suggested that he had taken these desperate measures because of the person he loved. He said he had been beaten up some little time before that because of his lover's quarrel.

6. Mr. Chan, most unfortunately for him, apparently bore some resemblance to the person against whom the Applicant had a grudge. He was in fact a completely innocent bystander. As a result of the throwing of the acid he suffered considerable disfiguration and very serious cosmetic injuries. He has permanently lost the use of his left eye. He also has acid burns on the whole of his forehead, his eyebrows, nose and the left side of his face.

7. The trial Judge in considering the sentence that he should pass upon the Applicant bore in mind that this crime was premeditated. The carrying of the mug filled with acid and the use of acid did not in any way impinge upon the employment of the Applicant. He also had in mind the guilty plea and the minor previous convictions of the Applicant.

8. He stated that he was imposing a "very severe deterrent sentence".

9. The throwing of acid at any person is a very horrible crime. Whereas a gun or a knife may cause minor wounds, acid upon a person's face causes major disfigurement inevitably. It is also a vicious act whatever the supposed provocation may be.

10. As I have said, here the unfortunate victim was totally unconnected with the Applicant in any way. We can see nothing wrong whatsoever in the sentence of 10 years that was passed. If anything it may well have been on the light side.

11. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence is refused.

Representation:

Applicant in person.

D. Fitzpatrick Esq. for Crown/Respondent.