HKSAR v. Chiu Chun Pong
|
DCCC 391/2014 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 391 OF 2014 -----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
---------------------------- Reasons for Sentence ---------------------------- 1.The defendant originally faced one charge of wounding with intent under s.17(a) of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap.212. On the first day of trial, the prosecution applied to replace that charge with the less serious charge of wounding under s.19 of the same ordinance. The defendant pleaded guilty to the amended charge, admitted to the summary of facts and was duly convicted. Summary of facts 2.64 year old Mr. Wong, PW1 the victim, was hiking in Kam Shan Village at Hon Ka Road, Tai Po at around 3:50pm on 20 February 2014. When he was outside no.1 Kam Shan Terrace, the defendant came out and took photos of him. PW1 used the ‘fitness ball’ (4.5cm diameter) that he was holding to try to block the defendant’s camera. A dispute ensued and there was some pushing between them. 3.During the melee, PW1 punched the defendant on the chest a few times with the ‘fitness ball’ and the defendant took out a folding knife (about 12.5cm long handle and 6cm long blade) from his trousers’ pocket and used it to wound PW1. As a result, PW1 bled from the wounds on his right shoulder/arm, waist and left hand; and his clothes were slashed. PW1 retreated but the defendant continued with the attack. PW1 picked up a ‘cone for roadwork’ nearby to fend the defendant off. PW1 shouted for help and he eventually sought assistance from a passer-by to call the Police. 4.Under arrest and caution, the defendant alleged he used the folding knife to assault PW1 because PW1 used 2 metal fitness balls to hit him first. 5.PW1 was sent to Alice Ho Miu Ling Nethersole Hospital for treatment. He was subsequently admitted to the orthopaedic ward of Prince of Wales Hospital for further management. PW1 was found to have sustained the following injuries:
6.In the subsequent video recorded interview, the defendant claimed that he was playing computer games at home when he heard his dog barking for some 15 minutes. He then saw PW1 peeping into his house through a window in the kitchen. PW1 immediately walked away when he was discovered. 7.Feeling suspicious, the defendant took a camera and went outside his home to take photos of PW1. PW1 stopped the defendant from taking photos and then they engaged in a dispute. 8.PW1 then assaulted the defendant with a silvered colored fitness ball in each of his hands and the defendant’s right shoulder was hurt. The defendant fended off and pushed PW1. To defend himself, the defendant took out a folding knife from his trousers’ pocket and ‘pushed it forward’, which wounded PW1. 9.The defendant is of previously clear record. Mitigation 10.The defendant is 39, from 1994 to 1998 he worked in sales, then from 2000, he worked as a merchandiser (see letter from WGC Shop), and has worked in the same company since then, earning around $20,000 per month. The defendant worked with the same boss until the company grew to its size today. 11.The defendant is educated up to F.5 level. His present wife is a housewife, but studying and taking examination to become an accountant. She had worked since January 2014 at the Inland Revenue Department, but because of the defendant’s case, she resigned in June 2014, main reason being that after the defendant committed the offence, she became worried about his mental and emotional condition and wanted to look after her husband full time. 12.In relation to the place where the incident happened, it was outside no.1 Kam Shan Estate, which can be relatively easily be intruded into. 13.In 2009, the defendant’s home was burgled, causing the defendant to be more alert about intruders. He just wanted to take a photo of the potential intruder so that he can use the photo if necessary. 14.The defendant’s family has 12 people, each month, family expenses go to about $10,000 odd, including money to support parents, his wife, electricity bills etc. The defendant is the sole financial support of the family. 15.The defendant’s employer will continue to employ him only if it is a short absence, they will not keep the position for the defendant. 16.A Community Service Report (plus a further report), Probation Officer’s report and 2 psychiatric reports were prepared on the defendant to assist in sentencing. Sentence 17.The maximum sentence for wounding under s.19 is that of 3 years’ imprisonment. 18.There are no sentencing guidelines and each case must be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances. Mr. Lee for the defendant very helpful compiled a table of sentences imposed in various cases. Sentences ranged from Community Service Orders to imprisonment. 19.Multiple reports were ordered to be prepared on the defendant prior to sentencing. In the first CSO report, the defendant was found not to be suitable to undertake community service because of his psychiatric condition only and not for any other reasons. I found that the defendant should not be punished for his medical condition if the court had thought that a CSO would have been appropriate. Furthermore, once it is ascertained the extent of his current psychiatric condition does not require immediate hospital in-patient treatment, then a Probation Order would be more fair and in the long term beneficial sentence both for the defendant and society. I found that perhaps with the assurance of expert opinion of the psychiatrists, the probation officer will be able to reassess the defendant’s situation and make a fresh recommendation. A further CSO and a probation officer’s report was ordered alongside 2 psychiatrist’s reports. 20.It is the Probation Officer’s opinion that in view of the defendant’s positive family support and his willingness to reform, a 12-month period of probation coupled with psychiatric treatment as directed by the officer is suitable. CSO is however still not a viable option given the defendant’s emotional condition and his need for active psychiatric follow up treatment with medication. 21.I find that the fact that the defendant has been in gainful employment and the fact that his employers are willing to continue to employ him if the defendant is not imprisoned an important factor to consider when determining on the appropriate sentence. 22.It is undeniable that what the defendant did was seriously wrong and the injuries suffered by the victim were rather serious. Fortunately, the victim impact report indicates that there are no psychological damages suffered. Physically, save for the presence of a scar, there appears to be no long term damage as well. 23.The defendant has been in remand for a short period of time (22 days). This case has been hanging over his head for a long time. He was of previously clear record. There is genuine remorse shown. The charge is that of wounding under s.19 and not under s.17. The defendant is willing to compensate the victim in the sum of $10,000. 24.Based on all the above circumstances, I find that the most appropriate sentence in the present case is to require the defendant to be put on Probation for an 18-month period, with the usual condition and the extra condition that he seeks, receive and continue to receive psychiatric treatment as directed by the probation officer. The consequences of failing to abide by any of the conditions has been explained to the defendant. 25.The defendant is to compensate the victim in the sum of $10,000, to be taken from bail.
|
Other judgments that cite this case