The Queen v. Lam Chun Fat and Another

CACC000503/1995

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 503
(Criminal)

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

Coram: Power, V.-P., Mortimer and Mayo, JJ.A.

Date: 19 January 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Mortimer, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court) :

1. The two applicants are brothers. They were convicted by Her Honour Judge H.C. Wong in the District Court on 26 June 1995 of an offence of wounding with intent contrary to s.17 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212. It was an offence committed jointly with others. After conviction, Lam Chun-fat, who was then aged 18, was sentenced to a period in a training centre and Lam Chun-choi, who was 23, was sentenced to a detention centre. Lam Chun-fat applies for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence whereas Lam Chun-choi for leave to appeal against his conviction only.

The facts

2. In the evening of 10 January 1994 Lam Chun-fat had been attacked by a group of three youths on the staircase of Hong Tai House. The youths ran away but this applicant was angry and wanted revenge. So he gathered together a group of friends, including his brother, the 2nd applicant. They armed themselves with beef knives and lengths of water-piping. A few hours later, in the early hours of 11 January, they went in search of those three youths. They went to the 18th floor of Hong Tai House where in the lift lobby were three boys aged 12, 13 and 14. They were sleeping there. It was dark. They were mistaken by the 1st applicant as those who had earlier attacked him with the consequence that the applicant's group attacked them with the weapons we have described.

3. In the course of the attack, Lam Chun-fat realised his mistake. The attack was called off - but not before very serious injuries had been inflicted. One of the victims had a serious chop wound to his lips and mouth. Another had serious injuries to his knee and other parts of his body caused by blunt instruments. The third boy had numerous chop wounds - five to his head, two to his back and six to his arm. He had also some broken bones.

4. These two applicants were arrested in February 1994. After they were arrested, each of them made cautioned statements, admitting that they were involved in the offence with a group of six people. Chun-fat admitted his part in the chopping and Chun-choi admitted a lesser part - simply keeping watch.

At trial

5. Both the applicants contended that the cautioned statements were inadmissible because each had been assaulted, threatened or induced in various ways to make the statements. The statements were challenged in a voir dire but neither gave evidence on the voir dire. Having considered the matter, the judge admitted the confession statements. Once admitted, the evidence in the case was overwhelming. Neither applicant advances any grounds in the application for leave to appeal against conviction which has any merit. Those applications are refused.

1st applicant's application for leave to appeal against his sentence

6. The 1st applicant applies for leave to appeal against his sentence of a period in a training centre. He makes one point - that his elder brother was sentenced only to a period in a detention centre whereas he was sentenced to a longer period in a training centre. His elder brother was in his early 20s whereas he was about 18. Although we are not aware of the particular reason for the elder brother being sent to a detention centre, it is quite clear that the sentence on this applicant of a period in a training centre for this offence was completely justified, not only by the part he played in the offence but also of the needs of the applicant himself.

7. The application for leave to appeal against his sentence is refused.

Representation:

Lam Chun-fat in person

Lam Chun-choi in person

Mr Jackson Poon (Crown Prosecutor) for Crown/Respondent