HKSAR v. Li Man Kin

DCCC 266/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 266 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The Defendant pleads guilty to 2 counts of “Wounding with intent”, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212.

2.The victims are father and son. Around 10: 47 am on 4 February 2010, when they were about to enter the lift lobby of the office building where they worked, the Defendant suddenly pushed the father onto the ground and started chopping him with a 30 cm long knife for 2 to 3 times. The son tried to stop the Defendant and he was also injured. 2 uniformed police officers nearby saw the incident and shouted at the Defendant. He then dropped the knife and tried to run away. However, he was knocked down by a light goods vehicle and finally subdued by the police.

3.The father was in a critical condition on admission to the hospital. He sustained neck and back injuries with 3 chop wounds over the back and a cut wound on the neck. The son was also found in a critical condition with a deep incised wound over the back and liver laceration. He stayed in the hospital for 5 days after operation.

4.The CCTV of a nearby building revealed that the Defendant wandered around the area for quite some time before the attack.

5.The Defendant is now 35 years old, he was a delivery worker in a frozen meat company. He is married with 2 daughters aged 6 years old and 11 months respectively. He has 8 previous criminal records with 2 robbery offences in 1991. Most other offences are drug related and the last one was committed in 2001.

6.In mitigation, Mr. So, counsel for the Defendant, explained that the Defendant had a dispute with someone on the use of the lift in the building some time before the incident. He could not control his temper and took a knife there to attack the person who quarrelled with him. He identified wrongly the victim as the person and attacked him.

7.Mr. So said the Defendant is now remorseful, which can be shown by his plea of guilty. The Defendant wrote a letter to the court, saying that he regret very much what he did, his wife suffered from depression after given birth to his younger daughter, and wishes that a lenient sentence be imposed to allow him to take up the responsibility to raise the daughters again. A letter from his employer is submitted to show that the Defendant had been a good employee. A social worker also wrote a letter for the Defendant, telling me about the family situation of the Defendant and the Defendant is now very remorseful.

8.Mr. So added that the Defendant is not suffering from any mental illness. The Defendant had quitted dangerous drugs after his marriage and turned a new leaf to his life.

9.The range of sentence for this offence is wide, usually from 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment:

“The usual range of sentence for wounding with intent was 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment.  There were a host of wounding with intent decisions which might be used in favour of a lenient view whereas other favour a stricter view.  At the end of the day， the sentencing court obtained a ‘feel’ for the appropriate result by regard to the attitude of the courts over a period of time to a great variety of circumstances.”[1]

10.This is a premeditated offence. The Defendant brought along a 30 cm knife, waited at the vicinity, planned to attack someone, although wrongly identified as the victim. The cause of such brutal planned attack was just because of an argument on the use of lift. It was totally disproportionate. A clear message should be given to the Defendant and also to society that this conduct is not tolerable and should be deterred.

11.The victims suffered from very serious injuries as a result of the attack. They have not done anything wrong. The sentence to be imposed should also be sufficient to do justice to them.

12.Taking into account the mitigations advanced by counsel. An appropriate starting point should be an imprisonment term of 4 years for each count. With the guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 32 months’ imprisonment for each count.

13.Applying the totality principle, I order that 6 months of the first count be run consecutively to the second count. The overall sentence is therefore 38 months.