Case Document

100%

DCCC1266/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1266 OF 2011

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

	HKSAR
	v.
	Lam Wai-ho (D3)
----------------------

Before:

Deputy District Judge Woodcock

Date:

13 March 2012 at 4.36 pm

Present:

Ms Patricia Wong, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Pun Chi Ming Chase, instructed by Messrs Littlewoods, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 3rd Defendant

Offence:

(1) Causing grievous bodily harm with intent (有意圖而導致身體受嚴重傷害)

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.I found the 3rd defendant guilty of charge 1, a section 17 wounding offence after trial. The 1st and 2nd defendant were sentenced after their plea to 2 years and 8 months for charge 1.

2.I will not repeat the facts of this case, I dealt with them in full in my Verdict. I found there was a joint enterprise between the three defendants to punish the victim for whatever reason and a good beating followed. The 3rd defendant was very vocal in his accusations against the victim, according to the witnesses and according to the evidence and the other defendants, all parties used physical force against the victim, sometimes individually and at least on one occasion at the same time. He suffered, as I have said, there was no dispute, grievous bodily harm. It ended with the victim unconscious and unresponsive on the floor of this shop. Then the defendants got scared and tried to help the victim when it was clear he was not pretending to be unconscious. At least there was an attempt to help him but as far as this offence is concerned it was too late, the commission of the offence was over.

3.I found the 3rd defendant guilty of being part of this joint enterprise and having the required intention to cause the victim grievous bodily harm. I found from the conduct of the defendants, from all three I could infer that they had the foresight to realise the consequences of such a beating would be grievous bodily harm. The injuries suffered would be very relevant in sentencing and I listed out his injuries in my Verdict. I do not intend to repeat them again.

4.The defendant is not a man of clear record, he has numerous convictions. However, there is only one conviction that involves violence and that is his last conviction in 2008.

5.I have heard mitigation put forward on behalf of the defendant and had a letter written by the defendant. He now expresses remorse for his actions he now admits.

6.It has been said in many authorities that a section 17 offence is serious and I quote Burrell J in HKSAR v Yuen Wai Kui [2005] HKLRD 343 when he says:

“All section 17 offences are serious, serious because they all contain the ingredient a defendant intended to inflict really serious injury at that time. The gravamen of this offence is the intention of the defendants.”

7.There are other relevant factors I found pertinent to sentence. I found it was a deliberate and planned assault. Here the victim was intended to be punished and he was punished. I do note that no weapons were used to hurt the victim. There was a strap and a carabiner but they clearly did not cause the more serious injuries. I do take into account that blows were rained upon the victim’s body periodically and over a period of time. From the evidence it is clear the victim did not fight back, at most he tried to soften the blows to his body.

8.All sentences depend upon the particular facts of each case. The maximum for a section 17 offence is life imprisonment. However, it has been often said that a section 17 offence will attract between 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment.

9.I did find there to be a joint enterprise and after considering the facts, I do not distinguish the role between the roles of any defendant. This is not a case where clearly one can determine who delivered the heaviest blow causing the most serious injury. I have decided not to draw any distinction between the different degrees of participation between each defendant in this enterprise.

10.Defendant, please stand up. I have considered mitigation put forward on your behalf, the facts of the case, the relevant factors I have set out already, the injuries suffered by the victim and the gravamen of this offence and for this charge, charge 1, I find the appropriate starting point, as I did for the 1st and 2nd defendant, to be 4 years’ imprisonment. Their discount arose from their pleas and show of remorse. This conviction comes after trial, I see no reason for any discount.

11.For this offence you are sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment.