R. v. Wong Chi Ming

CACC000607/1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 607

(Criminal)

_______________

_______________

Coram: Hon Litton V.-.P, Mayo J.A. and Yeung J. in Court

Date of hearing: 4 March 1997

Date of judgment: 4 March 1997

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Litton V-P giving the judgment of the Court:

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence.

2. The applicant was convicted after trial in the District Court and sentenced to three years' imprisonment on 8 October 1996. The charge on which the applicant was convicted was wounding with intent, contrary to s17 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212.

3. The offence occurred on 26 March 1996 at 10am at a carparking floor at the Mei Wah Industrial Building, Kwai Chung. The applicant hit the victim with an iron bar: several heavy blows were delivered to the head, face, jaw and shoulder of the victim. His jaw was fractured and his teeth loosened. These were serious injuries which, as the judge remarked, could have endangered life. There was a history of enmity between the applicant and the victim over the affections of a young woman. The judge accepted that the wounding was not premeditated.

4. The applicant was aged 26 at the time of conviction. He was a lorry driver. He had a number of convictions as a teenager, including a conviction for disorderly conduct in 1989 when he was sent to a Detention Centre. He also had a conviction for common assault. The applicant's employer was apparently supportive of the applicant and expressed willingness to re-employ him despite his imprisonment.

5. The judge in sentencing the applicant took three years as his starting point but gave no discount and therefore the applicant ended with a sentence of three years. In sentencing the applicant the judge said this:

" The defendant has been convicted after trial. He is not of clear record, having a number of convictions for assault when he was a teenager. Although he has kept out of trouble in recent years, he does appear to be of a violent and volatile disposition."

6. Counsel for the applicant complains of the judge's observation regarding the applicant's disposition: In our view, the violence exercised in the course of the assault justified the judge's observation.

7. The judge, as mentioned earlier, gave no discount from his starting point of three years. This was not an error in principle. In the circumstances of this crime the sentence is not manifestly excessive. The application must therefore be dismissed.

Representation:

Mr A.A. Bruce QC, SACP and Miss Lily Ho, SCC (Crown Prosecutor) for Crown/Respondent

Mr Peter Wan (DLA) for the Applicant