The Queen v. Wong Wing Ting

CACC000017/1986

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF HONG KONG

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 17 OF 1986

___________

BETWEEN

____________

Coram: Hon. Yang, J. A., Penlington and Macdougall, JJ.

Date of Hearing: 21st May 1986

Date of judgment: 21st May 1986

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

Penlington, J.

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant pleaded guilty to a charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 17 of the Offence Against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212, an offence which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was living with a woman who had a son by a previous marriage, who was then a little under three years old. The mother of the child left home, leaving her son with the applicant. When she came back, she found numerous burn marks on his body. The applicant then admitted to her that he used a cigarette lighter to burn the boy and explained that he had done so because the boy had been disobedient by falling asleep while studying. Two days later, the boy went back to a kindergarten. The principal found him to have multiple burn marks and referred the case to the Shatin Police Station. The boy was sent to the Prince of Wales Hospital for treatment. A medical report was prepared and it is difficult not to become emotional when considering that report. It showed that in addition to two haematomas, one on the eye; and one on the head; this very young boy had been burned over a very large part of his body. There were superficial burn marks on both hands, on his face; on his legs and on his scrotum. There were second degree burn marks on his legs, on the soles of both feet, and there were first degree burn marks on the backs of both ears. It was quite clear that the cigarette lighter had not only been applied to many areas of the infant's body but had been deliberately used to inflict burns on the most sensitive parts.

3. The only fact which we consider to be relevant in mitigation is that the applicant pleaded guilty and had admitted what he had done to the child's mother. However, the admissions were made in circumstances under which he really had not much choice. There was ample evidence against him.

4. This is a case of the deliberate torturing of a very young child, admittedly committed on one day, but which must have extended over a considerable period of time during that day. It is true that the boy has apparently no permanent physical disability but it must have had a serious effect on him mentally. We consider that a sentence of from 5 to 6 years imprisonment, after trial, would have been appropriate in this case. The trial judge here has made, if anything, more than adequate discount for the plea of guilty. Leave to appeal against sentence is therefore refused. This application is completely without merit and we order that the time during which the applicant has been in custody pending the determination of this matter be not reckoned as part of the term of his sentence.

Representation:

Mr Petrus Chan (Hampton, Winter & Glynn) for Applicant

Mr J. L. Abbott, Counsel for Respondent/Crown Prosecutor