Read the full judgment text of CAAR 000001/2006 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 23 May 2006 before Stuart-Moore VP, Stock JA, Burrell J.
Criminal law – sentencing review – wounding with intent (section 17(a) Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212) – domestic violence – use of knife – manifestly inadequate sentence – starting point – guilty plea discount – victim reduced to vegetative state – section 81A Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221. The respondent, a 34-year-old woman of unblemished character and devoted mother, stabbed her husband twice with a kitchen knife after he pawned her gold jewellery (worth about $23,000) to repay his debts, following years of provocation including his unexplained resignation and her earlier payment of about $100,000 of his debts with her life savings – whether a sentence of 9 months' imprisonment for wounding with intent was manifestly inadequate – Court of Appeal held the sentence was manifestly inadequate because the judge had adopted an 'exceptionally low' starting point of 18 months for a deliberate knife attack that left the victim in a vegetative state – proper starting point was 6 years, reduced by one-third for guilty plea to 4 years, and further reduced to 3½ years to take into account that the respondent had already served and been released from her original 9-month sentence – discounts beyond the one-third for good character and desire to reunite the children with their mother were not appropriate given the catastrophic injuries inflicted and the fact that the respondent herself caused the victim's incapacity – domestic violence with dangerous weapons remains a matter of public concern regardless of the domestic context – original sentence quashed and 3½ years' imprisonment substituted.
Legal issues: Whether the 9-month sentence for wounding with intent was manifestly inadequate · Appropriate starting point for sentencing · Application of guilty plea and good character discounts · Whether further reduction warranted for time served and release
Outcome: Application for review allowed; original sentence of 9 months' imprisonment quashed and substituted with 3½ years' imprisonment.
Cited by 8 cases · Cites 1 case