Tam Fei v. The Queen

CACC000433/1972

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.433 OF 1972

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

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

Coram: Rigby, C.J., McMullin & Leonard, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 24th August, 1972.

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

JUDGMENT

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

Leonard, J.: The applicant, on the 18th of May 1972, pleaded guilty to throwing corrosive acid with intent to do grievous bodily harm. On the 29th of May, having considered the probation officer's report, the learned trial judge imposed a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment. It is against this sentence that the applicant now seeks leave to appeal.

2. The victim of the act complained of was the 26-year old son of the applicant, and it appears from the statement of facts, admitted by the applicant to be correct in the court below, that on the 3rd of April 1972 a family dispute arose. The details of this dispute are immaterial for the purpose of this decision. What is material is the fact that it was one of a long series of quarrels arising, in particular, from the fact that the applicant did not adequately contribute to the support of his wife and the household of which he was the head. This failure may be ascribed to his ill health and his unfortunate addiction to drugs.

3. Consequent upon the quarrel the applicant took a bottle of corrosive acid, kept in the household for domestic purposes, poured the acid into a bowl and threw the contents of the bowl at his son. The son sustained chemical burns to the face and body and was detained in hospital for one day.

4. The appellant's last conviction for larceny, after conviction for a number of drug offences, was as far back as 1963. His criminal record was properly ignored by the learned trial judge.

5. There is one matter of some importance to which the learned trial judge has not alluded to at any length. That is, that this quarrel was entirely a family matter and it took place entirely within the premises occupied by the applicant and his family. It was further the case for the applicant here and in the court below that because he was suffering from asthma he was unwelcome in his own house, and there is perhaps some justification in his complaint that members of his family, particularly the son in question, were intolerant of him. That, of course, does not excuse his offence which was clearly to some extent pre-meditated. However, the absence of any members of his family here today is perhaps illustrative of their present view towards him and is something which we feel should be taken into account.

6. We can in no way say that the learned trial judge was wrong in principle or that the sentence imposed by him was so severe as necessarily to call for our interference. However, the family nature of the quarrel and the other matters to which I have alluded are such as to enable us today to act with a certain degree of clemency in this matter. It is accordingly the decision of this court that the sentence of 12 months' imprisonment be reduced to one of 9 months' imprisonment, to run from the date of the original sentence, that is, the 29th of May, 1972.

Representation:

Appellant in person.

E. So for Respondent.

(Judgment of the Court delivered by Leonard, J)