R. v. Nguyen Thang-loi

CACC000335/1991

HEADNOTE

Applicant was found guilty after trial of the offence of malicious wounding and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for seven years. The Applicant attacked a woman with whom he was cohabiting with a pair of scissors and deliberately and repeatedly stabbed her at the right eye, blinding her in that eye. The Court was satisfied that the sentence was a severe one but it was within the proper range.

-----------------------------

Coram: Hon. Yang, C.J., Silke, V.-P. & Power, J.A.

Date of Hearing: 20 February 1992

Date of Judgment: 20 February 1992

------------------------

J U D G M E N T

------------------------

Power, J.A.:

1. This is the judgment of the Court.

2. The applicant was charged that on 4th December 1990 at Hut 4A, Section 6, Whitehead Detention Centre, Shatin, he unlawfully and maliciously wounded Nghiem Ngoc Huyen with intent to cause her grievous bodily harm. He pleaded not guilty to that charge and was, after trial, found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for seven years. He now appeals against that sentence.

3. The facts as set out in the Reasons for Sentence of the trial judge, Her Honour Judge Bokhary, are as follows. On the night of 3rd December the defendant asked the victim, with whom it would appear he was cohabiting, what she had inside her zipped upper garment pocket. She said that she had $50 and a letter from Vietnam and he then asked her for money to go for a drink. She refused and they both went to sleep. On the following morning she woke to find that her pocket had been unzipped and that the $50 and the letter was missing. The defendant, when taxed with it, first denied having taken the money and the letter but later admitted having done so and said that he torn them up. She having unsuccessfully looked for them then returned to bed and an argument commenced. I read now the findings of the trial judge:

"..... they started pushing each other. He then slapped her face; and, after being pushed by her, picked up a pair of scissors nearby and poked the same towards her. madam Nghiem, who was very frightened at the time, grabbed hold of the scissors. However, the Defendant overpowered her; and, while sitting on her abdomen, he pulled the scissors free from her grip, and stabbed her in the right eye. He repeatedly stabbed her in that eye. In the course of the attack, in order to use the scissors more effectively, he opened up the same, and stabbed her right eye with one of the scissors blade. The last stab went right through the white of that eye. In the course of attack, Madam Nghiem's fingers were also injured, when she was warding the Defendant off with her hands."

The trial judge noted that as a result of the attack the victim suffered three cut wounds on her right upper eyelid, one cut wound on her right lower eyelid and that her right eyeball was perforated at the cornea. She stated that she is blind in that eye as a result.

4. The trial judge when sentencing said that she regarded the offence as a serious one and characterized it as a particularly bad case. She stated she had taken everything said in mitigation into account and went on to say:

"..... the fact remains that what you did was deplorable. You attacked this woman with a pair of scissors. You stabbed her repeatedly, having in the course of the assault adjusted the weapon in your hand, in order to use it more effectively for the purpose of hurting her. You chose as your target her eye. As a result, she is now blinded in one eye. That is the permanent result of what must have been a terrifying and agonizing experience for her."

It was in consequence of those findings that the trial judge was satisfied that 7 years imprisonment should be imposed upon the applicant.

5. The applicant is represented today by Mr. Poll who has argued only one ground of appeal, that being that the sentence was manifestly excessive in the circumstances, the judge having failed to give full consideration to the circumstances under which the applicant was living, his relationship to the victim and the way in which the incident arose. What we have said of the facts makes it plain that this was a vicious wounding deliberately directed at the night eye of the victim. It resulted, as the applicant must have realized it very likely would, in her being blinded in that eye. These, in our view, are aggravating circumstances of particular weight. We are, as we have been urged by Mr. Poll to be, conscious of tensions resulting from prolonged confinement but these can be given little weight in mitigation in the circumstances of this attack. We have not been assisted by sentences in other cases to which we have been referred with quite different facts. We do bear in mind that the incident was between persons who were cohabiting but reject entirely any suggestion that this was, in any sense, a lovers' quarrel. The applicant had stolen Money from the victim and it was out of this theft that the disagreement arose. The sentence was a severe one but was not so outside the proper range as to require our interference.

6. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is therefore dismissed.

Representation:

Mr. A.A. Bruce (Crown Prosecutor) for the Respondent.

Mr. Michael Poll (D.L.A.) for the Applicant.