HKSAR v. Lui Ka Lun

DCCC 823/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 823 OF 2014

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding contrary to section 19 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance Cap 212.

2.The maximum penalty as prescribed by the Ordinance is 3 years imprisonment.

3.According to the summary of facts admitted by the defendant he was a resident of a cubicle on the 2^nd Floor of No 20 Pei Ho Street Sham Shiu Po Kowloon and became acquainted with the victim when doing some casual work.  The defendant lent the victim $5,000.00

4.At around 3am on the 18 June 2014 (the date of the offence) the victim came to look for his friend who occupied the cubicle opposite to the defendant.  Upon seeing the victim the defendant demanded the return of the loan.  The victim claimed he had no money and a dispute arose.  The defendant returned to his cubicle and picked up a cutter with an 8” long blade (exhibit P 1).

5.The defendant used the cutter to assault the victim.  The victim used his arm to block the assault.  The victim was slashed on the right upper arm and forearm and stabbed in the thigh.  The victim managed to escape to the 4^th floor.

6.The police arrived and the defendant was identified as the attacker.  The defendant was arrested and under caution remained silent.  During a subsequent interview under caution the defendant effectively denied all knowledge of PW1, the attack and the cutter.

7.The cutter was seized from a box on the bed of the defendant and the victim identified the cutter as the one used by the defendant in the attack.

8.As a result of the attack the victim was admitted to hospital and the physical examination revealed:-

(a) Right upper arm 10cm superficial laceration;

(b) Right forearm superficial laceration; and

(c) Right thigh 3cm stab wound.

9.His upper limb wounds were sutured with a total of 14 stitches and the wound to the thigh was treated with a wound exploration.

10.The victim was discharged on the 19 June and followed up on the 4 July when the stitches were removed.

11.I am informed there is no long term disability as a result of the injuries.

12.The defendant initially took issue with paragraph 3 of the summary of facts but after the case was stood down to allow Mr Cheung appearing for the defendant to take instructions the defendant admitted paragraph 3 as drafted.

13.In mitigation Mr Cheung re visited the issue saying the real reason for the attack that night was the defendant’s belief the victim was a peeping tom looking at his wife who was having a bath at the time.

14.Whatever the reason for the dispute the resort to violence by the defendant was wholly inexcusable.

15.It is fortunate the victim was able to defend himself and in doing so received only lacerations to the arm.  Given the length of the blade of the cutter (exhibit P1) and that it was used in anger the injuries could have been far more serious.

16.I was provided with the medical reports (exhibits P9 and P10) and the photographs (exhibit P11) showing the injuries to the victim.  Although the reports refer to superficial injuries to the arm the injuries as depicted in the photographs appear fairly serious.  Mr Cheung agrees the injuries do appear to be more than what a layman would class as superficial and referred to them as “nasty wounds” a description which I would agree with.

17.There is no tariff sentence for this offence and sentences of imprisonment are certainly not uncommon.

18.Since each case is fact specific little guidance as to the appropriate sentence can be gleaned from other cases.

19.However in Secretary for Justice v Yu Yat Sang [2011] 1 HKC 155 which was an application for review in respect of two charges arising out of a dispute where the defendant had used a chopper the Court of Appeal commented the starting point of 18 months in respect of the charge of section 19 wounding was low.  I note however in that application the Secretary for Justice did not seek to invite the Court of Appeal to interfere with that sentence.  That case also involved a charge of section 17 wounding and it was the sentence passed in respect of the section 17 wounding charge which was the reason for the application for review.

20.The defendant has a number of previous convictions some drug related and 4 relating to violence.  On the 1 November 2011 he was convicted for a section 19 wounding offence and sentenced to 4 months imprisonment.

21.In mitigation I was informed the defendant is 44 years old living with his wife at the premises.  He is a casual warehouse caretaker working on average two days a week earning $600 per day.

22.Mr Cheung with reference to the defendant’s previous convictions particularly those for violence suggests he has some anger management issues.

23.A person who resorts to violence in this manner can expect little sympathy from the Court.

24.The defendant’s only real mitigation is his plea of guilty for which he will be given the usual one third discount.

25.These were nasty injuries requiring stitches and wound exploration.  The defendant’s use of violence was inexcusable.  He does have a history of violence and whilst this should not be a reason for increasing his sentence it also does not provide him with any mitigation.

26.I bear in mind however the wounds were diagnosed as being superficial and there has been no long term effect on the victim.  The nature of the attack in the Yu Yat Sang case was more serious than the present case since the attack took place whilst the victims were sleeping and some five hours after the dispute had taken place and involved the use of a chopper.

27.In all the circumstances of this case I shall adopt a starting point of 18 months imprisonment which will be reduced to 12 months to take into account the defendant’s plea of guilty.

28.I have considered all that has been said in mitigation but can find no reason for further reducing that term.

29.Accordingly the defendant is sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.