HKSAR v. Liu Chu Kwong

DCCC1040/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1040 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant was convicted after trial for the charge of wounding with intent, contrary to s 17(a) of the Offences Against the Persons Ordinance, Cap 212.

FACTS OF THE CASE

2.In the early hours of 18 July 2011, the defendant used a hammer to hit on the head of his wife, who was sleeping at the material time.  His wife woke up in pain and dashed to open the main door of the flat, but the iron grill was locked, she could not open the door.

3.The defendant continued to hit her on her head from behind with a hammer.

4.The incident woke up the neighbours.  They came around to the door and asked the defendant what happened.  The defendant then left his wife for a short time.  When the defendant returned, the hammer was no longer with him. 

5.The defendant used both of his hands to strangle his wife and stepped on her chest. 

6.The police arrived, the defendant opened the door and showed the police where the hammer was.

7.Under caution the defendant said,

“It was my wife kept pulling, and out of a moment of anxiety I carelessly picked up a metal hammer to hit her and it landed on her.”

8.PW1 received 69 stitches, there were seven lacerations on her head and bruise marks on her chest.

MITIGATION

9.The defendant is 71, and his first wife died in November 2008.  In 2010, he remarried again.  His second wife is PW1 who is about 40 years old.  She is a divorced woman and lives in Shenzhen with her 17-year-old son from a previous marriage.

10.There were 14 letters from all of his children, relatives, neighbours and from the church to mitigate on his behalf.   In a gist, they all said that the defendant is a quiet, polite and gentle person.  The defendant and his family members all said that it was a bad mistake for him to marry PW1, and that was the root of the problem.  They said that PW1 married the defendant for money.  As a result of this relationship, the defendant was depressed and upset.  The defendant is now remorseful for what he had done to PW1.

11.The defendant also has a clear record.

SENTENCE

12.I have regard to the case of Secretary of Justice v Yu Yat Sang CAAR 2/2010.  The court held that a starting point with those facts involved for a s 17 charge was one of five-and-a-half years’ imprisonment after trial.  In that case, the defendant had an argument with the victim some five hours earlier.  He reported the matter to the police and the matter was settled.  Five hours later, while the 2 victims were sleeping, the defendant went over with a chopper and chopped the victims.  The other victim was also injured after he tried to grab the hands and the body of the defendant to prevent him from carrying out further attacks.

13.In that case, the attacks were serious.  A chopper was used and direct to the region of the head as well as to the back of the victim.  The victim’s right ear was largely cut through and there was a large cut at the side of the neck.  The two victims were attacked when they were sleeping.

14.It is clear from the cases that there are no sentencing guidelines or tariff for the offence of wounding with intent.  The usual range was said to be one of between 3 to 12 years.  That range was referred to in Secretary of Justice v Yu Yat Sang, and mentioned the case of HKSAR v Hau Ping Chuen [2008] 3 HKC 398 - that wide range reflecting the fact of the circumstances in which such offences are committed were infinitively varied.

15.In sentencing, the court must look at the matters from all angles; the circumstances of the offence; the relationship between the defendant and the victim; but regard should also be had to public interest as well.

16.In the present case:-

(i) The relationship between the defendant and PW1 were husband and wife.

(ii) The attacks were launched when PW1 was asleep.

(iii) PW1 simply was defenceless with no opportunity to protect or defend herself.

(iv) The weapon was a hammer. This was a dangerous and lethal weapon when execute attacks on human beings.

(v) The attack was focussed on the vulnerable part of a human body: the head.

(vi) PW1 ran from the bedroom to the door. The defendant chased after her and continued to hit her with the hammer.

The defendant’s attack on an unarmed victim was vicious and excessive. He did not show a shred of mercy.

(vii) The attack on PW1 as a result of her constant demand of money was totally out of proportion.

(viii) This was clearly an intentional attack with a view to cause her serious bodily harm. She received 69 stitches on her head.

(ix )The defendant also stepped on her chest and grabbed her neck, which caused her suffocation.

17.The intention of the defendant’s act could not be any clearer.  No one can disagree that this was an extremely serious and violent attack on the victim.  This was a multiple attack on an unarmed victim.

18.At the time of the trial, the victim told this court that she still has pain on her head; she has difficulty in sleeping; she was afraid living alone; she has no money to treat her problem.  She is still suffering from all these problems as a result of this attack.  I said that there were 69 stitches on her head, some of them left with some patches of scars on her head that no hair would be able to grow again as the wounds were too deep.

19.The medical report also says that she complained of occasional headache, dizziness, slight subjective memory impairment and attention deficit to the doctor.

20.Having heard mitigation on his behalf and taking these facts into account and regard to the case of Yu Yat Sang, I consider that a term of five years’ imprisonment is appropriate.

21.The defendant is sentenced to five years.