HKSAR v. LEUNG CHI KWONG

 DCCC847/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 847 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to an offence of wounding with intent, contrary to Section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance.

2.  You have admitted that on 29 May 2009 at the ground floor, No. 52 Tse Tin Tsuen, Tuen Mun, New Territories, you unlawfully and maliciously wounded Govinthasami Prasathan with an intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

3.  At about 10 pm on 29 May 2009, the victim and another person were watching television in the living room of their flat.  The door of the flat was left ajar at the time. 

4.  You lived next door to this flat.  You entered the flat and reproached the victim and PW2 with swear words.  You then left the flat and about a minute later, returned to the flat and approached the victim, took out a chopper and attacked the victim with it. 

5.  The matter was reported to the police.  You were arrested and located, and under caution, you told the police officer, “Ah Sir, he fucked my mother, so I entered his kitchen and used a chopper to chop him.” 

6.  The chopper could not be recovered at the scene.

7.  The victim was admitted to Tuen Mun Hospital for medical treatment and was diagnosed to have sustained:-

         (1)  Two scalp lacerations;

(2)  One 4-centimetre oblique and one 3-centimetre laceration at left medial palm;

(3)  One 2-centimetre superficial abrasion at left hand dorsum;

(4)  And one 1-centimetres laceration at the right big toe plantar crease.

8.  The victim’s wounds were sutured and dressed and he was discharged from Tuen Mun Hospital the following day.

9.  Defendant, you are 28 years of age and have 21 previous criminal convictions of which 5 are related to violence.  The most similar to this offence is one of wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm but contrary to Section 19, committed by you in December 2005 to which you were sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment, together with other offences, of which you were to serve consecutively.

10.  Miss Anthea Chan, your solicitor, has fully mitigated on your behalf today and I have taken into account what she has had to say for you in mitigation. 

11.  She has informed this court, which the prosecution does not challenge, that these flats are in fact small corrugated iron huts, very close to each other.  You lived in the one adjacent to the victim’s and the kitchen for these various corrugated huts was in a separate hut of which was a communal kitchen for all those huts. 

12.  On that day, you had thought that the victim’s television sound was on too loud and was causing you a nuisance. Therefore, you went over to his hut.  You went over there to ask them to lower the sound.  However, when you entered the hut, as the door was left ajar, the victim and PW2 started swearing at you in Chinese, the swear words referring to, “Fuck your mother”.

13.  I am informed that you felt provoked by their swearing and therefore, went out of their hut and went to the communal kitchen outside and saw a knife and then took the knife and went back into the hut and chopped the victim.

14.  Miss Chan has referred me to the case of CAAR12/2007, Secretary for Justice v Hau Ping Chuen, judgment of 26 March 2008 in respect of a wounding with intent case.  In that case, the court held that 5 years was the appropriate starting point after trial for those facts of wounding.

15.  Each case must of course depend on its own facts.  The reasons and why woundings occur are different in every case.  As referred to in the case of Hau Ping Chuen, in the decision of HKSAR v Tse Hok Lam [2005] HKLRD 344, the usual range of sentence for wounding is described as being between 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment.

16.  Miss Chan has asked me to distinguish the present case from that of Hau’s case, in that in this case, you were provoked by the victims’ swearing and went out to take the knife from the kitchen.  You were not pre-armed with the weapon, that is you were not pre-armed when you first went to the hut; and in this case, the victim was only hospitalised for 1 night while in that case, the victim was hospitalised for 3 days; and in this case, the victim was not defenceless as he was a man of similar age and was accompanied by somebody else. 

17.   Wounding cases with choppers are prevalent in Hong Kong.  These are weapons capable of inflicting lethal wounds.  As to the question of premeditation in this case or pre-arming yourself, when you first went to the premises, I accept you were not armed, but you then left to retrieve the chopper and came back to the victim armed, that is of course premeditated.

18.  You had, you say, been sworn at by the victim and were provoked.  Although you might have been a little angry at being sworn at, you may have perceived this as provocation, but I do not consider that your response was proportional to the provocation you say you received.  Your reaction to someone swearing at you and taking a chopper, is wholly and utterly disproportionate.

19.  This to me was clearly an attack which was made with vengeance at a victim who was defenceless and unarmed at the time.  You re-entered the hut, not saying a word, with your hands behind your back you suddenly approached and chopped the victim.  This was not, I consider, a spur of the moment decision. 

20.  This victim was your neighbour.  One has to be patient and know how to resolve affairs with neighbours in a reasonable manner.  There are often cases reported that neighbours use violence, such as chopping, to inflict upon their neighbours when they are causing nuisances or disturbances, there must be a message sent that this cannot be tolerated.

21.  You entered into a hut which was somebody’s private abode because the door was left ajar, you were not even invited to this abode.  To be attacked in the privacy and security of one’s home is even a more aggravating factor. 

22.  You are a young man of 28.  You already have 5 previous similar convictions of violence.  As long ago as in 1998, you were sent to Training Centre for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.  You have been sentenced to imprisonment for your violence.  You yourself have a conviction for using abusive language on railway premises.  I consider your record also to be a further aggravating factor.

23.  I accept of course you have pleaded guilty to this offence and I shall give you the usual one-third discount.  I also accept that the victim did not suffer permanent injuries.

24.  For this offence of wounding, had I convicted you after trial, I would have imposed a sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment.  I however consider, as I said earlier in my reasons, that this is aggravated by your record of violence and also by the fact that you entered into somebody’s private abode to commit this offence.  For that, I increase the sentence by a further 6 months, that means that I would take a starting point of 4½ years’ imprisonment after trial.

25.  Giving you full credit for your plea of guilty, that term is reduced to one of 3 years’ imprisonment to which you are so sentenced.