The Queen v. Chan Shui Yuen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 94/1986 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The applicant was charged with 'Causing grievous bodily harm with intent' and, having pleaded guilty to that charge, was sentenced to imprisonment for one year by District Judge Tung in Kowloon District Court on 10th January, 1986. She now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.
|
CACC000094/1986
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG COURT OF APPEAL (Criminal Jurisdiction) --------------------- BETWEEN
------------------------ Coram: Hon. Roberts, C. J., Hon. Kempster, J.A., Hon. Power, J. Date of hearing: 25th April 1986 Date of delivery of judgment: 25th April 1986 --------------------- JUDGMENT --------------------- Power, J. 1. The applicant was charged with 'Causing grievous bodily harm with intent' and, having pleaded guilty to that charge, was sentenced to imprisonment for one year by District Judge Tung in Kowloon District Court on 10th January, 1986. She now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence. 2. The victim Chan Siu-yau was the applicant's sister. The applicant, after a family quarrel, took boiling water, went into the bedroom where the victim was lying on her bed and poured the water over the victim. The victim sustained extensive scald wounds all over her body as well as multiple scratch marks which had, apparently, occurred in an altercation that took place earlier in the evening. 3. The District Judge who dealt with the matter was careful to obtain a probation officer's report and a psychiatric report. He fully appraised himself of all of the surrounding circumstances before imposing his sentence. There do not appear to be any circumstances of real mitigation. 4. The applicant, in a fit of temper, poured boiling water, in a deliberate and vicious way, over her sister. All of the matters that should have been considered by the trial judge were considered. 5. We are satisfied that the sentence of imprisonment for one year was a proper sentence and nothing urged before us would warrant our interfering therewith. 6. The application is refused. We direct that the applicant shall lose 50 days as there is no merit of any sort in this appeal. Representation: Mr. McCoy (Crown Prosecutor) for Respondent Applicant in person |