HKSAR v. Wong Chung Chung
|
DCCC 82/2013 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 82 OF 2013 ----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of wounding with intent. The offence was committed on 21 October 2012. 2.The victim in the case, a Mr Lam, is aged 54 and he is the owner of a decoration company which is located in Kwun Tong. 3.At about 6.30 pm on 21 October 2012, Mr Lam was at the back of his shop preparing for dinner. He suddenly felt something hit on the back of his head and he turned round and saw the defendant, who was raising a chopper. 4.He tried to get hold of the chopper but failed. The chopper hit on his right forehead. He struggled with the defendant and the defendant’s fingernails scratched his arms. There were drops of blood all over the shop. 5.The defendant then left the shop and dumped the chopper, a recycled bag and a cap outside the shop. 6.Lam chased after the defendant and pushed him onto the ground. A passer-by helped guard the defendant whilst Mr Lam made a report to the police. 7.The defendant was arrested and, under caution, claimed that he threw the chopper at Mr Lam and he made the same claim in a cautioned interview. 8.CCTV records show that the defendant left his residence with a recycled bag in his hand at about 5.10 pm on the day of the incident and took the chopper along to the shop. 9.The victim, Mr Lam, was treated at the United Christian Hospital. There was a chop wound on the back of his head,7 centimetres in length, and a chop wound on his right face, 3 centimetre in length. Two superficial cut wounds on his right forearm and scratches on both forearms and abrasions on his left hand were treated. The victim had three stitches inserted in the right eyebrow and five to the back of his head. 10.The chopper has been produced in court. It has a very wide blade and a wooden handle. 11.The defendant has a clear record and he is 70 years of age. He was born in China in 1943 and educated there to Form 5 level. He came to Hong Kong in 1974 and he and former wife had four children - three sons and a daughter - who are all now in their thirties and forties. 12.He was separated from his wife in 1995 but not formally divorced until 2012. After divorce, he married his current wife who is 38 years of age in May 2012 after he was divorced. He had known her for some four to five years through the introduction of an aunt in Shenzhen. 13.The defendant has worked in textile factories and in dye factories until he retired. He is now in receipt of $2,000 per month by way of social security benefits. 14.The motivation behind this offence was that the defendant had suspected since about August 2012 that his wife was having a relationship with the victim. 15.I am told that at around that time he noticed a change in her attitude and was told by a friend that the victim was having a relationship with his wife and also with the friend’s wife. 16.The defendant started to follow his wife and on a number of occasions he saw her go to the victim’s shop. He saw that she was cooking for the victim and having meals with him. The defendant saw this occur on about three occasions and he became very angry. Not only was he deceived by his wife but he had spent all his life savings - some three to four hundred thousand dollars - on his wife. 17.On 19 August 2012 he confronted his wife and she admitted the affair and left the matrimonial home. 18.I am told that on the day of the offence the defendant was going to the shop to confront the victim. 19.Initially the court was told that the victim had taken the knife for purposes of self-defence and when he got to the shop, because he was provoked by the victim, the defendant lost his temper and threw the knife at him. 20.However, it was later clarified that the defendant went to the shop, he chopped the back of the victim’s head, causing the injuries the 7-centimetre in length to the back of the head, and thereafter there was a struggle during which the victim sustained the further injuries. 21.The aggravating feature of this case, of course, is that the offence was premeditated. The defendant left his home over an hour before the attack and he had the chopper with him. 22.In mitigation, however, the defendant has a clear record. He is 70 years of age and has never been involved in anything of this nature previously. 23.I also accept that his health condition is poor. He has suffered from diabetes since 1998. He had kidney failure since 2007. He has suffered from hyperglycaemia and hypertension since 2009 and he has had a pleural effusion since 2012. 24.I also accept that he was clearly annoyed and probably somewhat humiliated by the actions of his wife. Within just a few months of the marriage, she had started to have an extra-marital affair with the victim, and this was a woman on whom he spent his life savings, some three to four hundred thousand dollars. 25.Also I accept, as has been said in mitigation, that the injuries caused in this incident were not of the most serious kind for offences of this nature: the victim suffered no permanent injury or disability and he was discharged from hospital the same day. 26.However, obviously, offences of this kind are very serious. Sentences vary according to the circumstances of the offence, but, clearly, substantial prison terms are called for when people commit offences of this nature. 27.Having taking into account all the circumstances, I have decided to take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment and reduce that by one-third to reflect the guilty plea. 28.The defendant will go to prison for 2 years.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||