Kot Shek Yuen v. The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 849 OF 1972

________________________

________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Huggins, J.:

1.We are now concerned with the Appellant’s application for leave to appeal against his sentences.  He was convicted on two charges of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm and was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on each charge concurrent.

2.This is unfortunately a type of case which is not unique.  The case for the prosecution was, and this was believed by the learned trial judge, that a number of resettlement officers were going about their lawful occasions.  It was part of their duty to take photographs of hawker stalls.  They had just done this when the Appellant, who was a hawker, accosted them and used abusive language.  He was told that if he had any complaint he should go to the Resettlement Office but thereupon he attacked one of the officers.  A struggle ensued and the other officers went to the support of their colleague.  At this the Appellant broke away and went to a fruit stall where he picked up a knife, with which he struck two of the resettlement officers.  The medical evidence was that one of them had a wound which was described as “quite a serious injury”. He had a four-inch cut on his right arm which severed a muscle, while the other man had slightly less serious injuries on his hand, but tendons were severed.

3.The Appellant is a married man and he claims that there are dependent upon him his mother, his wife and seven children.  It is, perhaps, a matter of comment that before us the Appellant started his address by repeating the story which he had given in evidence before the learned trial judge, which was to the effect that he was acting solely in self-defence, but he has subsequently admitted that he was wrong.  We have heard further evidence of character and it is not contradicted that he has a good reputation: he has no previous criminal record and is known as a peaceful man.  However, the learned judge concluded his judgment with these words:

“I am satisfied that the accused attacked Ho and Wong in a state of high temper, feeling perhaps that he was being unfairly harassed in his attempt to earn a living.”

We cannot but comment that the resettlement officers might have had a similar feeling, for they were attacked when they were trying to earn their living.  We are told that the Appellant is to be evicted from his resettlement accommodation but, no doubt as a result of the efforts of Mrs. Elliott, who gave evidence on behalf of the Appellant, alternative accommodation is being provided for them in another resettlement block.  The move, of course, will cause a certain amount of inconvenience – even hardship – but that is not a matter to which we ought to attach much weight.  The important thing is that this was an unprovoked attack by a member of the public on two officers who were carrying out their lawful duties and that such officers must be protected against this sort of attack.

4.In our view we would not be doing our duty if we interfered with the sentences which have been imposed, and this application must be dismissed.

13th April 1973.