HKSAR v. Ho Tak Wing

DCCC46/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 46 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant is charged with wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap.212. The defendant pleaded guilty after PW1 concluded his examination-in-chief. The defendant admitted the facts and was convicted accordingly.

The Facts

2.At 3.40 am on 29 November 2009, the victim returned from outside and when he arrived at the entrance of his residence, a male rushed towards him and chopped him with a knife. The victim tried to ward off with his left hand which resulted in injuries to his arm. Then two other males, one of which was the defendant, also rushed towards him and attacked him with knives. As a result, the victim’s limbs, right ear and lower abdomen were severely injured.

3.The victim sustained multiple chop wounds at right ear, left upper limbs and left lower limbs, in particular the following injuries: one suprapubic oblique chop wound about 16 cm in length and one horizontal chop wound about 6 cm in length at lower abdomen; 4 cm cut at right loin; 4 cm cut at left thigh; laceration wound at right ear; 4 cm cut at left hand dorsum; 3 cm cut at right sole. There were complete cut of wrist and finger extensor tendons at left wrist level. The extensor tendon of the left big toe was also lacerated partially at left big toe. The tendons were all repaired. Apart from the scar left behind, permanent residue stiffness over his left wrist and finger is expected.

4.The defendant, aged 22, single and lived with his family prior to his detention. He had a stable job and made regular contributions to the family. He has two previous criminal records related to violence and was last released from detention centre in December 2005.

5.After considering the facts and the injuries sustained by the victim, I consider the appropriate starting point to be 4 years. From the defendant’s own mitigation letter, he said he was remorseful, he has learnt a lesson and wants to start afresh. The mother also asks for leniency on his behalf. The best mitigating factor is the defendant’s plea at the conclusion of PW1’s examination-in-chief. Though this came late, I would allow him the full one-third discount for his plea. However, I do not consider there to be any mitigating factor called for further deduction.

Order

6.The defendant is sentenced to 32-month imprisonment.