The Queen v. Chow Kit Ming

Case No.HCMA 753/1985[1997] 2 HKC 96

Court

High Court CFI

Date—

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCMA000753/1985

	1985 No. 753
	(Criminal)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Magistracy Criminal Appeal No. 753 of 1985

___________

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

Respondent

and

CHOW KIT MING

Appellant

__________

Coram: Hon. Hooper, J. in Court

Date of Hearing: 23rd September 1985

Date of Reasons for Judgment: 23rd September 1985

________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

________________________

1. The appellant appealed against his sentence of 2 months' imprisonment in respect of one charge of 'Common Assault'. He had pleaded guilty in the Magistrate's Court at Causeway Bay.

2. The appellant, who was unrepresented when he appeared before the Magistrate, admitted facts in the following terms:

"	At approx. 1800 hours on 5.7.1985, P.W.1 was driving his private car CZ 9251, along Aberdeen Tunnel Flyover heading for Aberdeen Tunnel. In reaching near the Hong Kong Jockey Club Administration Building, P.W.1 was intercepted by a private van CS 528, which was driven by deft. Eventually, both vehicles stopped on the flyover near the Aberdeen Tunnel entrance. Deft got off from his van and approached P.W.1. Deft accused P.W.1 of cutting into the lane on which his van was travelling near the Cross Harbour Tunnel Kowloon Entrance and causing inconveniences to deft. Deft then dragged P.W.1 out from his car and beat P.W.1 up with his bare fists.
	2. At this juncture, P.W.2 on static post duty nearby. He went over to the vehicles to have a look and eventually called for police. P.W.3 arrived at scene shortly afterwards and brought the deft to Happy Valley Police Station for enquiry.
	3. P.W.1 was subsequently sent to Tang Shiu Kin Hospital for medical treatment and as found to have sustained "Contusion over his forehead, face, chest and both upper limbs (please see exhibit).
	4. After police enquiry, deft was charged with 'Common Assault' on 8.7.1985."

3. The Appellant, who had a clear record had nothing to say in mitigation and the learned Magistrate then passed the sentence of 2 months' imprisonment.

4. Counsel for the appellant whilst accepting that the facts revealed a serious offence of 'Common Assault' , nevertheless urged me to hold that the 2 months' term was too severe in all the circumstances of the case. He pointed out that although it was not brought to the attention of the Magistrate, there had been an exchange of very unpleasent language before the appellant committed this offence. He also pointed out that there had been an exchange of blows.

5. Crown Counsel agreed that there had been an exchange of blows but that the victim had acted in self defence. He drew the Court's attention to the fact that the case had been dealt with by a very experienced Magistrate, though he expressed his own view that the sentence was on the heavy side.

6. I couldn't say that the sentence was manifestly excessive and no criticism could in my opinion be made of the learned Magistrate for the sentence which he passed. However the appellant had served 8 days of his sentence and he came before the Court having already paid a price for his folly and his hot temper.

7. In view of his clear record I felt some sympathy for him and as an act of clemency decided to take a course which would enable him to return to his normal life but ensure he exercises more control over himself for the next 2 years.

	( N.B. Hoover )
	Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr. WAHAB, ABU BAKAR biu (Kenneth W. Leung & Co) for appellant CHOW Kit-ming

Mr. G. J. McCoy, Crown Counsel for Respondent

Cited by 2 cases

Other judgments that cite this case

Government Property Administrator v. Chinaway Shipping Ltd

High Court CFI15 Sep 2003

Profitex Development Ltd. v. Tarxen Promotion Co. Ltd.

High Court CFI26 Apr 1999