HKSAR v. Liong Hoi Hing

DCCC756/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 756 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant enters a plea of guilty to one charge of ‘Wounding with intent’, preferred against him under section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212.

Facts

2.The facts to which the defendant agrees are as follows.

3.The defendant and the victim used to be a married couple, but were divorced in April 2009.  After a period of separation of about a year and a half, they started living together under one roof as co-habitees.  They have a 9-year old son.

4.On the evening in question, the defendant requested to have sex with the victim.  The victim refused him.  The defendant was irritated.  He accused her of forming a relationship with another man and kept scolding her.  When ignored, he became irate.  He struck the victim on the head with a ceramic cup, and then, broke the cup, grabbed her neck with one hand and, with the other hand, gashed her face with the broken cup, saying: “See how you could get married in the future.” 

5.The victim fled and made a report to the police.  Later, a police officer arrested the defendant.  He said under caution: “She is seeing another man, how could I stand it.”  In a subsequent video-recorded interview, he told an investigation officer he did not notice that the cup was broken when he hit the victim’s face with it. 

6.As a result of the attack, the victim suffered on the right side of the face a 10-cm laceration extending from the angle of the lateral side of the lower eyelid, going all the way along the cheek, ending in the right lower jaw (see the photographs submitted by the prosecution).  By the court’s count - and this is not disputed by the defence - the laceration necessitated over 40 stitches, and it has left a clearly visible scar on the victim’s face.  Further, a patch of bruising was noted on the right temporal region of her head.

Conviction

7.By entering a plea of guilty to the charge the defendant admits he knew the cup was broken and that he wounded the victim intentionally with it.  The court finds the defendant guilty as charged. 

Mitigation

8.In mitigation, the defence puts forward the following matters for the court’s consideration. 

9.The defendant is now 54 years old and has had a clear record before his current conviction.  Counsel for the defence asks the court to give the defendant a full discount for his guilty plea and clear record. 

10.The court is asked also to accept that the sudden attack on the victim was completely out of the defendant’s character.  In support of that plea in mitigation, counsel puts forward three clemency letters written by the defendant’s two adult offspring of a previous marriage and his nephew, a medical practitioner.  They said in their letters that the defendant has always been a good and responsible father without any violent disposition.  They suggested that he has committed the offence due to a momentary, uncontrollable outburst. 

11.The defence refers to what the defendant said in the interview, namely, the victim threatened to go off to Macau with another man, and asks the court to consider the issue of provocation. 

12.Further, the defence makes reference to a witness statement the victim has given to the police in which she claimed a portion of the responsibility for what occurred and said she had forgiven the defendant.        

13.Finally, the defence asks the court to deal with the defendant, a man of hitherto unblemished character, as leniently as possible, so that he could resume looking after his 9-year old son.

Discussion

14.Intentionally disfiguring another human being - in this case, a pleasant looking lady of 38 - is inexcusable. 

15.Apart from the immediate physical pain, the victim would have to bear a lengthy scar on the face, together with the psychological anguish that comes with it, for a long time.  The scar will become a fact of her daily life, a relentless fact which she (and the defendant, for that matter) can do little about. 

16.The physical scar and the psychological anguish would no doubt affect the victim’s social interaction, which can result in self-imposed isolation and avoidance of human correspondence, leading to further psychological pains and suffering.       

17.The courts in Hong Kong deprecate crimes of violence, including those committed in domestic settings.  A family is a place where its members are entitled to find from each other peace, comfort, and affection. 

18.Violent acts committed by an adult member of the family on another invariably result in psychological traumas to the children; the use of violence in a family setting is therefore most irresponsible. 

19.In the instant case, the defendant has a 9 year old son, now living with the victim.  One can hardly imagine how much the boy must have suffered seeing his mother’s injuries, with a nasty scarring, a scar his father gave her, and despite her own difficult situation, the victim would have to find extra strength to look after the boy.     

20.There is no sentence guideline for the offence of wounding with intent, so each case depends on its own fact.  The prosecution relies on the case of HKSAR v Yu Koon Mam CACC253/2007.  There, the Court of Appeal approved a starting point of five years for an offence of wounding with intent committed in circumstances that bore a striking similarity with the present case. 

21.It can perhaps be argued that there was a certain degree of premeditation in Yu Koon Mam’s case, which is absent in the instant case.  In the court’s view, the defendant in this case acted in a vicious manner to destroy the victim’s further chances of matrimony; therefore, no distinction of moment can be made between the two cases. 

22.As to the defence argument on provocation, the Court of Appeal in Yu Koon Mam’s case did not consider the kind of provocation suggested by the defence could amount to serious provocation. 

23.Material before the court suggests the victim has forgiven the defendant.  The victim’s view is always respected by the court, but in serious offences of violence, the interest of public lies heavily in favour of a sentence with deterrent effect. 

24.The court notes the defendant’s leg injuries.  In this respect, medical evidence shows that his condition is well‑managed.  

25.The court concludes that apart from his guilty plea and clear record, nothing in the defendant’s personal and family background would warrant any further reduction. 

Conclusion

26.In the result, the court would adopt a starting point of five years’ imprisonment, which is reduced by one-third on account of the defendant’s guilty plea and clear record to one of three years and four months’ imprisonment. 

Order

27.The defendant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years and four months.