HKSAR v. Yau Ip Chiu

DCCC1003/2009 & DCCC263/2010

(Consolidated)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1003/2009 & 263/2010 (Consolidated)

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of wounding with intent. The amended consolidated summary of facts admitted by the defendant stated that the victim in this case, who I will refer to as PW1, and the 2nd defendant, who pleaded guilty, are Fujianese townsmen. They have been acquainted for a few years before the incident.

2.The premises where the incident occurred is a flat on the 8th floor of Kiu Kwan Mansion in King’s Road, North Point. The premises were occupied by another Fujianese townsman, a Mr Yeung. Apparently it was the habit of the townsmen to gather at that flat for drinks.

3.At about 1 am on 29 April, PW1 arrived at the flat and had drinks with his fellow townsmen there. At about 3 o'clock on the same day this defendant and another person arrived at the flat one after the other. The victim noticed that the other man was carrying an umbrella at the time. That person handed this defendant the umbrella. The defendant opened it, and there were beef knives inside which were 15 inches in length. The defendant asked PW1 to go out of the flat for a talk and threatened to slash him. PW1 asked him why, and the defendant told him it was because of his arrogance.

4.PW1 attempted to explain that there was no enmity between them, and after giving this explanation, which was ignored by the defendant, the victim refused to go out. The defendant armed himself with a beef cleaver and he challenged and threatened to slash PW1 again. PW1 asked him why he threatened to chop him. The defendant said nothing but swung the beef cleavers at the victim, causing him serious bodily harm. It was alleged that at the same time, a second man, armed with a broken glass, threatened the victim.

5.Immediately after he had been injured, the defendant left the flat together with a number of other people. The police officers arrived shortly afterwards. The defendant had gone to the mainland via the Lok Ma Chau point at 5.07 am on 20 April, and he remained at large until he was arrested by the police at Shenzhen Bay in Hong Kong checkpoint at 12.30 pm on 25 January 2010.

6.The injuries sustained by the victim were a laceration over his right forehead, two deep lacerations which measured 6 centimetres and 8 centimetres in length over the left elbow and forearm respectively, a wound over his left index finger resulting in a 1 centimetre by 1 centimetre skin loss, two abrasions over the anterior chest wall and upper abdominal wall and an open fracture over the left elbow. The victim was discharged from hospital on 26 April 2009.

7.The defendant was later picked out at an identification parade held in April. The defendant has previous convictions: in 1996, for claiming to be a member of a triad society, he was sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment, suspended for 18 months; he has a gambling fine in 2004; and subsequent to his arrest for this matter in May of this year, for assaulting a police officer, he was ordered to serve a period in the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre for a period of 2 months.

8.I was told that the defendant is 34 years of age. He came to Hong Kong in 1990 and was educated to primary level. He is married and has two sons aged 11 and 12. Certain letters of mitigation were placed before the court from his uncle and aunty, from his elder sister and wife, who speak of him being a caring father to his children. I am told that the defendant is in deep financial problems. Not only does he have a family to support, but he has to support his mother and father, both of whom have medical problems.

9.Counsel has said little to say by way of mitigation in respect of the offence itself. The only mitigation in the case is that the defendant has pleaded guilty. This was a serious unprovoked attack with triad overtones. Looking at all the circumstances, I take a starting point of 5 years in respect of this matter. The only mitigation is the guilty plea, and I reduce it by one-third to reflect that.

10.So the defendant will go to prison for 40 months.