HKSAR v. Chu Sze Wing

CACC 289/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 289 OF 2011

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 172 OF 2011)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before: Hon Stock VP in Court

Date of Hearing: 20 December 2011

Date of Reasons: 20 December 2011

________________________

R E A S O N S

________________________

Hon Stock VP:

1.This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence, the applicant having this morning abandoned his application for leave to appeal conviction.

2.The applicant was convicted after trial in the District Court in July 2011 by Deputy Judge Chow of an offence of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212 and he was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment.

3.He lived in a cubicle which was one of 12 cubicles in the same apartment or room, and he and his neighbour, who was the complainant in this case, obviously have long standing problems which resulted in the attack in question whereby the applicant used a chopper to attack his neighbour.

4.The attack was obviously serious and required a significant term of imprisonment but I have decided to grant leave to appeal against sentence so that the matter can be considered by the full Court.  What has motivated me to grant leave is the fact that the judge came to the conclusion that this was a premeditated attack and I think the question whether that was an accurate categorization merits consideration. 

5.Secondly, given the possible absence of premeditation, my attention has helpfully been drawn by Ms Chiu for the respondent to a number of authorities, for example, Secretary for Justice v Hau Ping Chuen [2008] 4 HKLRD 673 and Secretary for Justice v Yu Yat Sang [2011] 1 HKC 155 where similar sentences were imposed for attacks that resulted in much more severe injuries than in this particular case.

6.Accordingly, it seems to me that the applicant’s case is deserving of further consideration.  I shall warn him that this does not necessarily mean that he will succeed.

Ms Samantha Chiu, SPP (Ag.) of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent

Applicant in person