The Queen v. Chung Pak-chuen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 429/1986 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. On the 26th May 1986 in the early hours of the morning, a Madam Chan came downstairs from her home to the small shop which was underneath. She found that the light was on in the shop, the door had been prized open and she saw the applicant, whom she recognized as a neighbour, standing inside with a hammer and a screw-driver.
|
CACC000429/1986 1986, No. 429 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (Criminal Jurisdiction) ___________ BETWEEN
___________ Coram: Hon. Yang, J.A. and Hon. Penlington, J. Date of hearing: 12th November 1986 Date of delivery of judgment: 12th November 1986 ___________ JUDGMENT ___________ Penlington, J. 1. On the 26th May 1986 in the early hours of the morning, a Madam Chan came downstairs from her home to the small shop which was underneath. She found that the light was on in the shop, the door had been prized open and she saw the applicant, whom she recognized as a neighbour, standing inside with a hammer and a screw-driver. 2. The applicant attacked Madam Chan with the hammer and she collapsed. She shouted out before doing so and her husband then came down and found her lying in a pool of blood. The assailant had made his escape. 3. On the 22nd of June Police enquiries having been carried out, the applicant was found and arrested. He admitted the offences of aggravated burglary and wounding with intent to disable and eventually pleaded guilty. He has a clear record. He apparently had been unemployed for some time and he tells us he had lost his money gambling and was seeking to get money to pay for a meal. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment on each count, the sentences to be concurrent. 4. This was quite an unjustified attack on an elderly lady. The applicant is indeed fortunate that he did not cause considerably worse injuries than in fact he did. 5. The only matter which gives us some concern is that the wounding with intent was, under the circumstances, a much worse offence than the burglary. The sentence of five years imprisonment for that was, if anything, lenient, and even taking into account the mitigating factors. However, we do not propose to interfere with either sentence. We find there is no merit in this appeal and the application for leave is dismissed; the sentences will run as from today. Representation: Applicant, CHUNG Pak-chuen, in person Mr M.D. Wilson, Counsel for Respondent |