The Queen v. Wong Wing Kin

CACC000295/1986

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF HONG KONG

Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 1986

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

BETWEEN

Coram: Hon. Silke, J.A., Macdougall & Mayo, JJ.

Date of hearing: 5th September 1986

Date of delivery of judgment: 5th September 1986

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

Mayo, J.:

1. The Applicant is only seeking leave to appeal against sentence. He was convicted of assault with intent to rob and wounding with intent.

2. Both charges arose out of the same incident and the Applicant was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment on the first charge and 3 years on the second charge to run consecutively.

3. The incident occurred on the 27th August 1984. The Applicant, together with other men, entered the victim's herbal clinic and attempted to perpetrate a robbery.

4. When the victim said he had no money he was assaulted and fell to the ground. The victim's wife then attempted to intervene but was pushed aside. She did, however, succeed in raising an alarm and three of the men then fled from the scene. The Applicant, however, remained behind and picked up a folding chair and threw it at the victim as he attempted to stand up. Very unfortunately it hit him in the face and as a result he has been blinded in one eye.

5. In his Reasons for Sentence the learned Judge stated why he made the sentences consecutive. The main one being that the assault took the form of being a gratuitous act following the robbery attempt. He also, very understandably, referred to the fearful consequences of the wounding charge.

6. Mr. King complains that the aggregate of the sentences passed results in an excessive period of imprisonment. He refers to the Applicant's youth, he was aged 17 at the time of the offence, and he also refers to the report of the Commissioner of Correctional services which suggested that the Applicant was in need of disciplinary training.

7. Certainly the 10 years referred to by the trial Judge in his reasons as the starting point was excessive. We can, however, see reasons for reducing the totality of the sentences passed from 7 years to 5 years. This is mainly on the ground that although he intended to injure him, the Applicant did not foresee the very serious consequence which would flow from his act.

8. This being the case we reduce the sentence for attempted robbery from 4 years to 3 years and that for the wounding charge from 3 years to 2 years. The sentences remain, of course, consecutive.

Representation:

Mr. A.A. Bruce, Senior Crown Counsel for Crown/Respondent

Mr. Alexander King, instructed by M/s. Alick Au & Massie, for the Applicant