HKSAR v. Choi King Fong
|
DCCC645/2010 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 645 OF 2010 ----------------------
----------------------
-------------------------- Reasons for Sentence -------------------------- 1.Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance. 2.You have admitted that on 2 May 2009, at the ground floor of No. 12, Chuen Lung Street, Tsuen Wan, that is a Chinese medicine shop, you unlawfully and maliciously wounded Leung Kin with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. 3.Both you and the victim, Leung Kin, were shop assistants at the Chung Wo Medicine Company. You had grudges against each other all along. 4.At about 3.20 pm on 2 May 2009, the manager of the shop, Mr Ng, heard someone yelling, “Come on, come on”. 5.Mr Ng turned around and saw that you were chasing after Leung Kin with a chopper. Mr Ng saw you use a chopper to chop Leung Kin’s head once and right hand once. He saw Leung Kin’s head and right hand were bleeding. 6.Leung Kin tried to dodge your attack and hid behind Mr Ng. 7.Mr Ng immediately grasped hold of you firmly, and other staff members working at that time came to separate you and Leung Kin. The police were called. 8.When the police arrived and arrested you, you admitted you had used the chopper to chop Leung Kin, because you and Leung Kin had a dispute over your work and Leung Kin had pushed you onto the floor. 9.As a result of the incident, Leung Kin suffered from:
10.He received treatment from a hospital and was discharged five days later on 7 May 2009. 11.In defending himself from your attack with the chopper, Leung Kin had picked up a wooden pole and struck you on your head. 12.As a result, you suffered from a two-centimetre laceration with local tenderness on the right occipital region of your head, and abrasions on your right hand and left forearm. 13.Mr Chan Chi-man, your counsel, has mitigated fully on your behalf today, and I have taken into account all that he has had to say. 14.I have also taken into account the letters written on your behalf by your family, who is your son and daughter, and yourself, and your employers. 15.You are 47 years of age and are of clear record. 16.You came to Hong Kong in 1985 to reunite with your parents from China. Ever since you arrived in Hong Kong, you have been in gainful employment. 17.Up until the commission of this offence, you had been working at that particular medicine shop for some 24 years. 18.After the commission of this offence, you had to work for another medicine shop and worked there from July 2009 until November 2010, when you resigned, as you knew that you were due to appear in court in this case and there was every likelihood that you would be sentenced to prison upon your plea of guilty. 19.You are married and have a son and daughter: daughter aged 18, studying in Form 5, and son, 16, in Form 4. I am informed that your wife suffers from a congenital heart disease. 20.Both your son and daughter speak of you highly as a very caring, loving, responsible father, and ask the court to have some sympathy for you and the family, as clearly, you are the sole breadwinner, and without your support, they will face extreme hardship. 21.The letters from your employers also speak highly of you, that you have had a good working attitude, are diligent, nice to customers, and also a caring family man. 22.Not only do you support your own immediate family, but you also contribute some $2,000 a month to your parents, who are aged 70 and 66 years of age. 23.Mr Chan, your counsel, has submitted that you committed the present offence out of impulse and it was not pre-meditated. He says that there was some degree of provocation by the victim and you lost control of yourself before you carried out the attack. 24.He asks the court to pass as lenient a sentence as is appropriate. He observes in this case that Mr Leung did not suffer from any permanent injuries. 25.Defendant, as I am sure you are well aware, an offence of wounding with intent is a very serious offence. The chopper which you had used was 34 centimetres long. It was heavy and quite sharp on one side, and was used for cutting Chinese herbs. 26.I am informed by Mr Chan that you took out the chopper from a drawer nearby to you, which you knew contained the chopper and a hammer. In your fit of anger, you lost control of yourself and attacked Mr Leung, because he had pushed you onto the ground. 27.In your evidence-in-chief, in giving evidence for the prosecution against Mr Leung (your co-accused) in his separate trial, to which I add I acquitted him on the basis of self-defence, you told me that at that material time, you were weighing herbs. Mr Leung had walked past you and bumped into you. Mr Leung then invited you for a fight. Whilst asking you for a fight, he pushed you and you fell down. When you fell on the ground, you got scared and you took out the chopper from the drawer and chased after Mr Leung. 28.Although Mr Leung might have provoked you by pushing you down and bumping into you, your reaction at attacking him with a chopper was extremely excessive and uncalled for. 29.As can be seen in the many cases in Hong Kong, people in Hong Kong tend to resort to picking up choppers to fight or as weapons. This type of weapon and use of the chopper must be deterred. These choppers are lethal weapons. They can kill at the slightest, lightest blow. 30.This chopper in question was a very heavy chopper and can be regarded as lethal, though, I accept, it was for cutting Chinese herbs. 31.It can perhaps be described as fortunate or lucky that Mr Leung’s injuries were not too severe, given the use of this chopper. The injuries, I accept, are not permanent injuries and are not too severe. He did, however, have three long lacerations caused to his head, forehead, elbow and right hand. 32.An attack made on someone on the head is extremely dangerous. That can be described as the most sensitive part of a person’s body. 33.Again, I say it was fortunate that the injuries were not so severe, despite you chopping him on his head. 34.I accept that you did not go necessarily and fetch this weapon from some other place, but nevertheless, that it was there in the shop, used for cutting herbs, but nevertheless, you knew it was there in the drawer which you went to take it out of. 35.You have a clear record and, clearly, this offence demonstrates it was completely out of character. I accept it was not pre-meditated and it was out of impulse, because you had lost control of yourself by being pushed over by Leung Kin, that you wounded him with the chopper. 36.In taking all the circumstances and factors of this case before me, defendant, I consider that a sentence of deterrence is appropriate. 37.The greatest mitigating factor is, your plea of guilty. You have, through your plea, shown me your remorse. 38.You have also, in this case, given assistance to the prosecution in giving evidence in the case against the 2nd defendant, Mr Leung. 39.You, however, do not fall within a “supergrass” category, or were, can I say, of very much assistance to the prosecution case, as I found that you were mistaken in your evidence, and I acquitted the 2nd defendant, Mr Leung. 40.For this offence, defendant, had I convicted you after trial, I would have taken a starting point of 3½ years’ imprisonment. 41.However, giving you full credit for your plea of guilty, I reduce that term to one of 2 years 4 months’ imprisonment. 42.Defendant, I further reduce the sentence by 4 months for your assistance given to the prosecution, and that final sentence for this offence, defendant, shall be one of 2 years’ imprisonment.
|