HKSAR v. WRIGHT JAMES MICHAEL

DCCC 862/2023

[2025] HKDC 56

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 862 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant, Mr Wright, has been convicted after trial of a single charge of wounding, contrary to Section 19 of the Offences Against the Persons Ordinance, Cap 212.

2.  I have already dealt at some length with the rather unique circumstances of this conviction and I do not propose to rehash them at this stage.  Suffice to say that as far as culpability is concerned, I note that almost all of the evidence was agreed in the case and the single issue the court was required to decide was the question of recklessness.  The prosecution case was never posited on the basis that the wound that was caused in this criminal case was one that was caused intentionally, it was put forward on the basis that it was a reckless wounding caused by the defendant’s reckless use of a bow and arrow set at his place of employment and the defendant was convicted on that basis. I do note, as I have already said, most of the evidence was agreed and this single issue was the issue left to be determined.  In my view, that does not put this into the category of case where an immediate sentence of imprisonment is required from the defendant.

3.  The legislation itself, the section of the ordinance I am dealing with, restricts the sentences available to the court, a suspended sentence of imprisonment not being available in this charge.  Having regard to those factors and having regard to the defendant’s personal factors, he is a young man of clear record, good working history and well thought of, I have decided, aside from the plea of not guilty, he would fit all the requirements of a Community Service Order and it is a proper sentence in respect of an offence of this nature.

4.  A Community Service Report has been obtained and it is a very positive one that recommends the defendant as a person who is suitable for such an order.  Such an order is available for him to be served and he is suitable for it.  So in those circumstances, it would appear to be the proper order of the court, having regard to all the factors I have already set out, is that I should impose a Community Service Order on the defendant.

5.  Now as far as the defendant is concerned, a Community Service Order is an order that is required to be done by consent, you have got to consent to this order.  So you have got to know something about it and give an informed consent to it.  The length of that order is on my determination to be one of 160 hours.  You must generally keep the peace and be of good behaviour obviously during the course of this order.  Commit any further offence, you will be liable to be brought back to this court and sentenced again for this offence if that happens during the currency of your Community Service Order. Now you are required under the order to complete the work that is allocated to you to the satisfaction of the supervising officer within the time allocated to you.  There is also going to be a further condition in this order that you promise to submit to random urine samples as directed by the Community Service Supervision Officer.  Right, now those are the conditions that you must comply with.  As I have already said, any breach of those conditions and you can be brought back to this court and also sentenced again for the offence for which you were originally convicted.

6.  You must also comply with the reporting condition for this order which is to report to Ms Tsang of the High Court Probation Office on 27 December at 2 pm.

7.  So the order of the court will be one of 160 hours of community service for the defendant.