HKSAR v. Lee Hon Man, Charles

DCCC56/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 56 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant, Lee Hon-man, Charles, was charged with one count of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance.

2.He pleaded guilty to the charge this afternoon and admitted the Summary of Facts and was represented by Mr McGowan of counsel.

The facts

3.The facts show that the defendant and PW1, the victim, were total strangers before the altercation with no grudge at all.  The victim worked at the supermarket located at Shek Lei Shopping Centre, Phase II, Shek Lei Estate, Kwai Chung, New Territories.  On 12 December 2011, at around 2030 hours, PW1 was preparing to close the supermarket for the business day when the defendant suddenly entered the supermarket and tried to take away some plastic bags for his own use.  PW1 stopped the defendant and because of that they had a dispute and argument.

4.After the argument, the defendant left the supermarket briefly and returned later with a metal-like object which was about 3 inches long.  The defendant used this object and slashed PW1 at his face, his neck and his back. PW1 was bleeding and he struggled with the defendant.  The defendant then left and the case was reported. 

5.PW1 had sustained laceration at his left face, neck, left arm and back.  He was admitted to the Prince Margaret Hospital.  A 4-cm laceration was noticed on the left chin.  Another two 5 millimetres long lacerations were noticed also at the left side of the neck, and besides, there was also a 5-millimetre long laceration found at the upper back.  He was operated and all the wounds were sutured and he was discharged from the hospital after the operation.

6.The defendant was later located by the police and was arrested. 

Criminal Records and Mitigation

7.The defendant is now aged 45.  He is single.  In the past he has 25 previous criminal convictions.  His last conviction is in January 2011 for an offence of theft for which he received 2 months’ imprisonment.  Most of his criminal records in the last 10 years were theft-related and there are only two violence-related records which were committed in 1984 for which he was only fined and received probation. 

8.Mr McGowan told the court that the defendant only received Primary 4 education and he was diagnosed with epilepsy in 1996 and thereafter living on public assistance.  He also has an 89-year-old father who is now in an elderly home and has suffered from a stroke and is depending on the defendant for all these years.

9.The defendant also had through Mr McGowan expressed apology to PW1.

10.I was shown photographs of PW1 by the prosecution in this case which had depicted the extent of injury which is largely consistent with the medical report and the extent of injury which I have just described.

11.In mitigation, Mr McGowan submitted to the court two authorities by the Court of Appeal.  He began by properly reminding the court that for this kind of cases, no sentencing guideline has ever been laid down.  It is true to say that every wounding case has its own facts but the Court of Appeal has stated that sentences for wounding with intent should be within the range of 3 to 12 years.

12.One of the cases which have been relied on by the defence is The Secretary for Justice v Hung Kar Chun CAAR9/2010.  In that case, the defendant was obviously disgruntled by the fact that the victim, who was the brother of his girlfriend had stopped, or tried to prevent him from seeing his girlfriend.  They had a row and argument in a busy shopping mall in Kwun Tong and after which the defendant went out of the shopping mall and bought a fruit knife and came back to attack the victim.

13.The injuries sustained by the victim in that case were far more serious than what had happened in our present case.  By comparison, the acts committed by the defendant in that case were planned and malicious as described by the Court of Appeal as there is of course an element of planning and premeditation involved.  The injuries involved the removal of the victim’s spleen which had impaired his auto immune functions.  Needless to say, that case also involved a sharp fruit knife which was described as a lethal weapon by the Court of Appeal. 

14.The Court of Appeal thought that the proper starting point in that case, after taking into account that this is an application for review, was one of 2½ years’ imprisonment.

15.By comparison, this case is less serious. Firstly, the metal object involved is a 3-inch long metal which was actually a piece of ornament which was fixed to the key ring carried by the defendant at the material time of the offence.  That is by no way as lethal as a sharp fruit knife with a length of 20 cm as in Hung Ka Chun.  On the other hand, the degree of planning and premeditation involved in this case cannot be compared with the case in Hung Kar Chun.  Although there are several and multiple lacerations suffered by the victim in the present case, they were also nowhere as serious as the victim as I have described in Hung Kar Chun. All in all, I accept that a lower starting point should be imposed in this case.

16.After taking all the matters into account, I accept that although the defendant has two previous records relating to violence, those were long time ago and this shows that the defendant is not a man of violent disposition.  Be that as it may, I consider that the proper starting point in this case should still be 2½ years’ imprisonment at least and that is 30 months.

17.The only mitigation in this case is of course the defendant’s plea of guilty and because of this, he should receive a one-third discount to reflect his plea.

18.The defendant is therefore sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.