HKSAR v. Leung Ching Kit

DCCC417/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 417 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding with intent.

2.The admitted facts reveals that the victim, Chan Yin-tung, aged 19, came to know the defendant through the internet at the end of 2009.  They became lovers until early March 2012.  On 12 March 2012, PW1 (the victim) returned home and found the defendant waiting there asking for reunion.  PW1 allowed him to enter her home to continue with the talk.  Inside PW1’s premises she refused to have reunion.  She further showed the defendant a love bite on her neck she claimed to have had with other people.

3.Suddenly the defendant used a knife to stab on the victim’s left chest.  She thought that the defendant would stab her again. She therefore grabbed the blade with her left hand and therefore cut her left hand.  To prevent the defendant from stabbing her again she calmed him by saying that she would not leave him.

4.The defendant regretted for what he had done and rushed to the kitchen in order to commit suicide.  PW1 stopped him.  The defendant then called the police for assistance. 

5.Under caution at the scene the defendant admitted having rushed into the kitchen to fetch a knife to stab PW1 as he was angry with PW1 on hearing her intimate relationship with others.

6.In a subsequent interview he further admitted that he had stabbed PW1 twice but unsuccessful on the second attempt.

7.Upon medical examination, PW1 was found to have a 1 cm stab wound over her left chest.  The wound was deep to the layer of fat.  PW1 received three stitches on her left chest.  She was also found to have a cut wound on her left thumb.  She was discharged on the same day.  The prosecution informs the court that the wound on the victim’s chest was 1 cm deep.  The victim has not sustained permanent injury.

Background and mitigation

8.I have called for a report to consider the suitability of a Detention Order in a Training Centre.  The report is now available.

9.The assessment officer of the Correctional Services Department considers that the defendant is suitable for detention in a Training Centre.

10.The defendant is now 18 years of age, he has a clear record, and he was living with his mother and an elder brother.  Owing to unsatisfactory academic performance he quitted schooling after completing Form 3 and enrolled in a 2 year craft course in painting, decorating and sign-making in Construction Industry Training Authority.  However, because of the prolonged absence as a result of his remand for this case, no place has been reserved for him.

11.In mitigation, Mrs Wong, solicitor for the defendant, referring to the defendant’s clear record, his plea of guilty and his co-operation with the police and the circumstances of the case, asks the court to order a Training Centre Order. 

12.Mitigation letters of the defendant, his family members and also his teacher in the school for the painting course have been submitted to this court for consideration.

The sentence

13.The offence is a very serious one.  The weapon used was a very dangerous one.  It was, as it appears, a meat knife with a blade of about 8 inches.  It can be a lethal weapon.  The defendant used it to stab on the victim’s left chest, a particularly dangerous place for an attack with a sharp weapon.  On his own admission he had stabbed the victim twice, but unsuccessful on the second attempt.  It was only by sheer luck that life was not taken and no serious injury was caused to the victim. 

14.If imprisonment is a suitable option for sentence, the starting point should not be less than 3 years.  As the offence is an excepted offence, section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance is not applicable.  However, a sentencing court still needs to consider how best it is to deal with young offenders given the nature and circumstances of the offence and the interests of the community.

15.The defendant is only 18.  The offence, no doubt, is a very serious one.  However, there had been a certain degree of provocation before he lost his control and committed the offence.  He attempted to commit suicide at the scene.  He called the police for assistance.  I accept that he is now remorseful.

16.Given all the circumstances of the case and his background and the recommendation of the assessment officer that a period of disciplinary training with a statutory supervision is beneficial to the defendant, I am satisfied that it is not necessary to sentence him by way of imprisonment.  A period of training coupled with statutory supervision would be in the interests of the defendant for his reformation and also in the interests of the community.  Both short sharp shock disciplinary training in Detention Centre and a detention in a Rehabilitation Centre, which is only suitable for offenders where a short-term custodial sentence is appropriate, in my judgment are not best options for the defendant’s background.  They are not adequate sentence to reflect the serious nature of the offence. 

17.The defendant had indicated his interest in the course which he was participating when the offence was committed.  In my view, a Detention Order in a Training Centre would provide the defendant the opportunity to acquire a skill which he is interested in to enhance his prospect of future employment.  The Order can help him to reintegrate into the community.

18.I am satisfied that the requirements for a Training Centre as discussed in the case of Wong Chun Cheong v HKSAR [2001] 4 HKCFAR 12 are satisfied.

19.I therefore make an order for detention of the defendant in a Training Centre.