HKSAR v. Syed Rashid Aslam

DCCC1222/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.1222 OF 2009

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.The defendant faces one charge of Wounding with Intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap.212. It is alleged that the defendant on 17^th June 2008, at Nam Cheong Park, no.128 Nam Cheong Street, Sham Shui Po, in Hong Kong unlawfully and maliciously wounded BUTT IMTIAZ KHALIQ with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. The defendant pleaded not guilty but was convicted after trial.

Background of the case

2.The victim Mr. Butt (“PW1”) came to know the defendant in April 2008. On the charge date, the defendant allegedly used a 6 inches long knife, together with 4 other people, attacked PW1 at Nam Cheong park. PW1 suffered a 4 cm laceration wound on his back near the right scapular region; superficial abrasions and patchy erythema on his back and right loin regions; multiple superficial lacerations on his anterior chest wall and shoulder regions; and 2 superficial lacerations of 2 cm in length on his forehead. PW1 was discharged from hospital the same day. The defendant was arrested 2 days later on 19^th June. The defendant gave an exculpatory version of events in the cautioned interview that was conducted on the same day he was arrested. Please refer to the Reasons for Verdict for a full account of the evidence in the case.

Previous convictions

3.The defendant has 1 pervious record but not similar to the present offence.

Mitigation

4.The main ground of mitigation put forward is that the defendant has suffered as a result of the delay in prosecution. The defendant was arrested on 19^th June 2008, but he was not charged until November 2009.

5.It was also submitted that PW1 did not suffer serious injuries. He was discharged from hospital on the same day. As seen from the photos, the only wound that required some stitches was a small one on PW1’s back. PW1 was hit on the head, but he did not suffer any serious head injuries.

6.The prosecution explained the delay and it is clear that the delay was through no fault of the defendant himself.

Sentence

7.This is a premeditated attack with a group of people with weapons on PW1. Fortunately, as counsel Mr. Raffell rightly pointed out, those who attacked him were trying to teach him a lesson rather than to seriously injure him. Given the circumstances, I find that a starting point of 2.5 years’ imprisonment is appropriate. I will however reduce that by 6 months to reflect the delay in prosecution. I will sentence the defendant to 2 years’ imprisonment.

Application for leave to appeal by the defendant against conviction to Court of Appeal granted conviction quashed and sentecne set aside. Please refer to CACC170/2010 dated 27 January 2011