HKSAR v. Lam Tung Chau

DCCC 816/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 816 OF 2014

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Charge

1.The Defendant pleads guilty to wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance. 

2.The defendant, aged 77 and the victim, aged 78, were both residents of an elderly home in Tuen Mun.  At around 6 a.m. on 16 July 2014, the victim was having breakfast at a table outside his room when the Defendant went to the kitchen and then walked towards the victim.  Without saying a word, he chopped the victim’s left hand with a chopper.  The victim tried to stop him and fell onto the ground.  He gave 2 more chops which landed on the victim.  The victim shouted for help.  A caretaker stopped his attack. He returned to his own room.  The case was reported to the police.  

3.When the police arrived, he told them that the victim had abused him beforehand, that he was angry and attacked the victim with a chopper.  Under caution, he said that the victim had scolded him and therefore he chopped the victim.  In the video-recorded interview, he said that the victim had been mean to him, that they were in a bad relationship and he had wanted to chop the victim all along. 

4.The victim was treated in the hospital and discharged on the following day. 

5.He was found to have a 5 cm left palm laceration with middle radial digital artery and nerve cut, not amenable to repair and a 6 cm left forearm superficial laceration.  Suturing was performed.  In his last follow-up 2 weeks later, the wound was healed but there was persistent numbness over his left middle finger. 

Personal background and mitigation

6.The defendant is 77 now, of primary education level.  He has various criminal records but none for violence.  His last record dated back to over 42 years ago.  He lives with his wife and youngest son.  The family is supported by CSSA.  He suffers brain cancer, liver failure, diabetes, and hypertension.  There is nothing of a life-threatening nature.  He receives medication and treatment regularly.  He has to walk with a stick, though.  His wife suffers long-term mental illness.   

7.About 8 months before the incident, he moved into the premises and met the victim.  It only took a day to set them at odds against each other.  Not long before the incident, he was about to fetch some warm water with a water basin in the kitchen.  He had a row with the victim.  After the victim left the kitchen, he took a chopper to attack the victim.  

8.His 4 children jointly signed a letter in mitigation for him. 

Sentencing considerations

9.There are no sentencing tariffs.  His solicitor refers me to the case of HKSAR v Hau Ping Chuen CAAR 12/2007. The defendant and the victim were indigenous clansmen of the same village.  He stabbed the victim with a 5 ½ inch-blade knife because the victim as the village representative on the previous day had put through a proposal to oust him and his family from attending in future banquet dinners funded by the village.  There were 2 cut wounds each of 5 cm long over the abdomen and groin respectively.  There were no long-term ill effects.  The Court of Appeal increased the sentence from 14 months on a plea of guilty to 3 years and 4 months by adjusting the starting point to 5 years.  As it was a review to increase the sentence, a 6 months reduction was given, to result in 2 years and 10 months.  

10.Mr. Pang, solicitor for the Defendant today, suggests a starting point of between 3 and 4 years. 

Sentencing this Defendant

11.The Defendant and the victim were of about the same age.  They were in a bad relationship but had to endure to live together.  That said, however, there was no justification for the Defendant to vent his anger by violence, and in the present instance, by extreme physical violence.  I take a starting point of 4 ½ years.  I give him the one-third discount for his plea of guilty.  Given that it was a crime at the spur of the moment and he had been free from trouble with the law and order for 42 years, I give him a further 6 months discount.  The sentence is 2 years and 6 months.