HKSAR v. Ho Lun Chim

DCCC1257/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1257 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.After trial, the defendant was convicted of one count of wounding with intent.

2.Here are the reasons for sentence.

3.The facts of the case have been detailed in the reasons for verdict that I delivered this morning.

4.In gist, the attack happened on 20 September 2010 when the victim and the defendant met on the street.  When they parted, the defendant suddenly went to the front of the victim and wounded the victim with a green cutter.

5.The defendant claimed that he acted in self-defence.

6.The victim suffered lacerations on his face and neck.  He was granted sick leave of seven days.

Mitigation

7.The defendant is aged 28 and had a clear record.  He does not have a violent character and this incident was completely out of his character.  The attack was not premeditated and can be regarded as a momentary action.  It would be unlikely that the defendant would re-offend again.

8.The defendant and the victim had grudges prior to the incident.  The assault and the injuries sustained by the victim was not the worst of its kind.  There was no medical evidence to prove the victim’s hearing impairment.

9.Defence counsel urged the court to pass a lenient sentence.

Sentence

10.This wounding case was an incident that arose from grudges between the defendant and the victim, and in fact, could be avoided, had the defendant exercised sufficient self-control.

11.I accept that the attack was not premeditated.  The case does not involve any triad element and was not the worst of its kind.  The defendant burst to take this aggressive attack on the spur of the moment.

12.Given his previous clear record, I take it that this attack was also out of his character.

13.The victim was fortunate in a sense that his eyes were not hurt and, from the photos shown, it is likely that the victim would have scars on his face.  The defendant attacked the victim when they parted and he deliberately pushed out the blade of the cutter to wound the victim.

14.As described by the victim, the defendant slashed the victim’s face twice and intended to stab hard for the third blow. On this third blow, the victim’s umbrella was cut open and yet the cutter could still reach the victim and injure him further.

15.The maximum sentence for this offence is life imprisonment.  It is well accepted that sentencing of this offence is very much case specific and there is no tariff.

16.That said, I have considered the case HKSAR v Law Kwok Fai, CACC204/2003.  In that case, the assailant acted alone and used a torch to hit three victims.  One of the victims suffered a 4-cm-deep laceration on his scalp and a 3-cm-long abrasion on his right eye, both of which required suturing.  He had no bone fracture, and was treated and discharged from the hospital the same day.  For this charge, that appellant received a term of 4 years.

17.I also accept that the chance of the defendant re-offending is low.

18.Taking into account of the circumstances of this case and the injuries suffered by the victim, I adopt a starting point of 2 years.

19.There is no substantial mitigation put forward by the defendant and, accordingly, I sentence the defendant to 2 years’ imprisonment.