HKSAR v. Yuen Hon
|
DCCC210/2012 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 210 OF 2012 ----------------------
------------------------ Reasons for Sentence ----------------------- 1.The defendant, Mr Yuen Hon, faces one count of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap.212. The particulars of the offence are that the defendant, on the 17th day of January 2012, at the corridor outside Room 612, 6th Floor, Banyan House, Kwong Yuen Estate, Sha Tin, New Territories, in Hong Kong, unlawfully and maliciously wounded Chu Chun with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. 2.He pleads not guilty to the charge but pleads guilty to the lesser offence of section 19 wounding, which is accepted by the prosecution. Facts admitted 3.In the early morning of 17 January 2012 the victim of the present case heard hammer noises emanating from the defendant’s flat. He went to the defendant’s flat. When the defendant’s son opened the door, the victim demanded that they stop the noises. The son of the defendant refused and went inside with a view to calling the police. 4.The defendant went to the door of the flat and the victim made the same demand in foul language. The victim demanded the defendant to come out of the flat to discuss about the matter and the defendant obtained a 6-inch long knife before he opened the metal grille. He pointed the knife at the victim. Fearing that he would be attacked, the victim punched the defendant. The defendant then stabbed him at his shoulder. 5.Police were summoned to the scene. 6.The victim and the defendant were taken to the Prince of Wales Hospital for treatment. The victim was found to sustain tenderness and laceration to his left shoulder and the defendant tenderness on left chest wall and an abrasion on the face. Criminal record 7.The defendant has a clear record. Background and Community Service Order reports 8.According to the background report, the defendant is aged 56, married with one son and two daughters, aged 24, 25 and 20 respectively. His wife died in 2003 and the children were brought up by the defendant. The elder son and daughter have entered employment and the younger daughter is a student. 9.The defendant was born in China and came to Hong Kong by illegal means in 1974. He received Primary 4 education in China and had worked as a stone-cutting craftsman and farmer in China. Since his arrival in Hong Kong he has been working as a decoration worker with a recent income of about $12,000 per month. 10.According to the probation officer compiling the reports, the defendant is remorseful for the offence and explained that as the victim was of strong build, he took along the knife to deter the victim from hurting him. He was nevertheless beaten by the victim and he hurt the victim in the chaotic situation. 11.According to the defendant and his elder daughter, the victim had in the past approached them to complain about noise disturbances which they did not cause. 12.The probation officer is of the view that the defendant is a suitable person to perform Community Service Order. Mitigation 13.Counsel for the defendant tells the court that the defendant understands and agrees to the contents of the background and Community Service Order reports. 14.The counsel points out that the incident in the present case occurred at 0615 hours. The victim shouted at the defendant’s son and scolded the defendant in foul language of making noises, which the defendant denied. The victim was abusive and demanded the defendant to come out of the flat. Against better judgment, the defendant went out to talk to the victim but impulsively took along a knife from the kitchen for the fear of being assaulted by the victim who was of strong build. 15.The defendant is remorseful and pleads guilty. He has a clear record and the offence is out of his character and is unpremeditated, being provoked by the victim. The victim has recovered well. 16.The defence counsel tenders to court a mitigation letter written by the defendant’s three children. They all describe the defendant as a good father who works hard to support the family. The defendant is remorseful for committing the offence. They ask the court to give the defendant a chance. 17.The defence counsel emphasises that the defendant has expressed deep and genuine remorse and fulfils all criteria for a Community Service Order. The counsel asks the court to impose a Community Service Order on the defendant. Sentence 18.The defendant pleads guilty to the lesser offence of section 9 wounding instead of wounding with intent. For this offence, there is no sentencing tariff. The reason is simple. The circumstances in the commission of such an offence can vary substantially, so does the sentence. It is therefore neither possible nor practicable to set down sentencing guidelines. The court therefore has to consider all the circumstances of the case to arrive at a just and appropriate sentence. 19.The offence is serious in nature, carrying a maximum sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment. The degree of wound caused to the victim is of course a factor to be considered in sentencing. As seen from the photographs, the wound suffered by the victim is a relatively minor one which is described in the medical report as a laceration. According to the defence counsel, the victim is recovering well. The court agrees that this is something to be expected for a wound of such a minor nature. 20.The defendant is 56 years old but has a clear record. He has a decent job and a harmonious family. He brought up his three children single-handedly after his wife passed away. It can be seen that he is a decent and law-abiding citizen who would not readily offend the law. 21.The offence was committed to a large extent through provocation by the victim. He wrongly accused the defendant of making noises early in the morning and he attacked the defendant by punching him first. Of course, it does not mean that the defendant is not to be blamed. He took along the knife and pointed the knife at the victim before the victim attacked him. The court, however, accepts that the defendant committed the offence at the spur of the moment. The court also accepts that the defendant deeply and genuinely regrets for what he had done. 22.The court is of the view that there are strong mitigating factors in the present case and is of the conclusion that allowing the defendant to do voluntary community work for society and at the same time to make reflection of his misdeeds through working is most beneficial to the rehabilitation of the defendant and to society at large. 23.The court therefore orders that the defendant is to perform 200 hours of community service for the offence he stands convicted.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||