The Queen v. Chan Yiu-chi
Read the full judgment text of CACC 212/1985 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. This was originally an application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The Applicant was convicted on one charge out of a number in the District Court, that one charge being of wounding with intent. He was sentenced to four and a half years' imprisonment. By leave of the court he has withdrawn his application for leave to appeal against conviction but has addressed us on the application in relation to sentence.
|
CACC000212/1985
BETWEEN
------------------------- Coram: Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P., Cons & Kempster, JJ.A. Date of judgment: 16th August 1985 __________ JUDGMENT __________ Sir Alan Hugging, V.-P.: 1. This was originally an application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The Applicant was convicted on one charge out of a number in the District Court, that one charge being of wounding with intent. He was sentenced to four and a half years' imprisonment. By leave of the court he has withdrawn his application for leave to appeal against conviction but has addressed us on the application in relation to sentence. 2. He points out that this incident was the result of bad blood which had existed for some time between the proprietors of the Paris and Peninsula Flower Shops. The judge referred to the incident as a vicious attack on an unsuspecting victim who was seated in a restaurant. There was no immediate provocation of any kind: the Applicant picked up a chopper and delivered one blow to the back of the victim - causing a wound no less than 22cm in length and 3cm in depth. The Applicant says that he is remorseful and he has drawn attention to the fact that on a subsequent occasion there was violence between the personnel of the two flower shops as a result of which he himself suffered injury, including the loss of a finger. That was not a cause of the present attack, nor was the trial judge satisfied that it was in the nature of a revere attack upon this Applicant. 3. We agree that this was a serious assault and that a substantial term of imprisonment was called for. We have been referred by counsel for the Crown to two previous cases. Each case, of course, must be regarded in the light of its own facts. The view we take of this sentence is that it was heavier than was necessary in all the circumstances and we think that justice will be done if we allow the application and the appeal and substitute a sentence of three years' imprisonment. 16th August 1985 Representation: |