HKSAR v. Chan Chi Ming and Another

DCCC 760/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 760 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.This trial involved originally four defendants. The 4th defendant pleaded guilty on the first day of trial. The 1st to the 3rd defendants were convicted after trial of the sole charge; all three were jointly charged with a section 17(a) wounding offence, contrary to Cap.212.

2.After trial and after conviction, I called for a training centre, detention centre and rehabilitation centre report for the 1st and the 3rd defendants, and I have all those reports before me today.  And I have heard full mitigation as well as seen mitigation letters submitted.

3.Now I do not intend to repeat the facts of this case.  I gave full details in my reasons for my verdict.  It covered all the facts of the seemingly random assault upon the unsuspecting victim.  In short, the victim was set upon by a group of males who used their fists, their feet and glass bottles to assault him.   The victim did suffer serious injuries and had to have stitches to his face, back, leg and arm.  Luckily, he has not suffered any permanent injury, but he does still have a visible scar to the side of his face.  His injuries are relevant to sentence. 

4.Both the defendants before me today were of clear record before this trial.  At the time of the offence, in November 2011, the 1st defendant was just a teen and the 3rd defendant 16½ years old. 

5.Wounding is a serious offence that has no guidelines or tariffs the court would follow.  Each sentence will be case specific.  Obvious relevant factors include the injuries suffered by the victim, whether or not weapons were used, when and under what circumstances the attack was, in a public place versus a private place.

6.And in this case I am not sure who was the principal offender, however, that is not necessary for me to determine because this was a joint enterprise.  I would also consider the fact that this attack continued despite the victim falling to the ground and being unable to defend himself.

7.If the defendants before me today were any older, I would be considering a 3½ to 4 year term of imprisonment appropriate. However, because of their young age and their previous clear record, I obtained, as I have just said, reports to assist me in sentencing.

8.Both defendants are eligible to be considered suitable for certain centres, an option other than an immediate custodial sentence.

9.I do not intend to repeat the contents of the reports or the letters of mitigation.  Each defendant’s sentence will be individually tailored depending on the information available from reports such as those before me as well as mitigation. 

10.Where the 1st defendant is concerned, he is not, according to the reports, suitable for detention centre.  The reason for that is he is medically unfit for detention in a detention centre.  He is deemed medically and physically and mentally fit for either rehabilitation centre or a training centre. 

11.From the information available and after an assessment of his behaviour and attitude whilst on remand, he is considered by the officer writing this report to be suitable for detention in a rehabilitation centre. 

12.The 3rd defendant is deemed mentally and physically fit for all three centres.  And the same officer who wrote the 1st defendant’s report says that from the information available and after a general assessment of his behaviour and attitude whilst on remand, the 3rd defendant is more suitable for detention in a detention centre. 

13.Sorry, I correct myself.  The same officer who makes the recommendation is not the same officer who writes the body of the report, the main report. 

14.The 3rd defendant has not agreed with all the contents of his report, and I have taken that into account.  What is clear is that he does admit an involvement with a triad society and triad activity.  He also admits that he has been involved in some habitual drug abuse.  He may not have left his employment due to laziness or there may have been some miscommunication between him and the officer.  But ultimately the report could not give any details of the assault he admits despite questioning.  The officer felt the defendant was not forthcoming despite questioning.

15.It was his opinion that there was no sense of remorse or reflection in his wrongdoing from the 3rd defendant.  It is also his opinion that the 3rd defendant is a youth that needs guidance and disciplinary training, and it is an opinion I agree with. 

16.The 3rd defendant’s counsel has asked the court to consider before sentence other reports, in particular, a probation officer’s report and a community service order report.  However, after reading the contents of this report and considering the seriousness of the offence, I am not of the view that those orders would be appropriate, so I do not intend to adjourn again. 

17.1st defendant, 3rd defendant, please stand up. 

18.After considering these reports and the facts of the case, mitigation I have heard and the defendants’ previous clear records, 1st defendant, I sentence you to a rehabilitation centre order.  3rd defendant, I sentence you to a detention centre order.