Wan Yum-suen v. The Queen

Case No.CACC 71/1976

Court

Court of Appeal

Date27 Jan 1976

Judge—

Case Document

100%

CACC000071/1976

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 71 OF 1976

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

BETWEEN:
	WAN Yum-suen	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 27th January, 1976.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm and was sentenced to one month's imprisonment. The appellant was leaving an elevator with his son, a small boy. Another man, who was referred to as a 'delivery boy' although he is a man of mature years, tried to enter the lift at the same time as the appellant was stepping out, accidentally struck the appellant - he was carrying a gas cylinder at the time. This caused the appellant to fall down and as the appellant got up the delivery boy made a gesture at him as though to strike him with the gas cylinder. He also used his fists and hit the appellant's face. The Appellant went to his residence which was nearby and seizing two aluminium pipes, which were part of a knitting machine, returned and struck the delivery boy on the thigh.

2. The magistrate sentenced the delivery boy at the same time as he sentenced the appellant but imposed a fine of $250, although he had a previous conviction.

3. The appellant has a clear record and holds a responsible position, being the owner of a small factory.

4. In my view, this was a trivial offence and the appellant should not have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He has expressed regret as to his behaviour and has, he tells me, learnt his lesson. It is, of course, inexcusable to use force against a fellow citizen even though one is provoked by that citizen.

5. However, in my view, justice would best be done here if I substitute a fine of $500 for the month's imprisonment imposed by the magistrate. In fairness to the magistrate it should be stated that the appellant was unrepresented in his court and, through inexperience, did not explain the full background and facts of the incident to the magistrate at the time.

	(Geoffrey Briggs)
	Chief Justice.

Representation:

Alan Hoo (Lau, Chan & Ko) for appellant.

Conway for crown.