THE QUEEN v. GIL T. BUENAFE

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

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

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

JUDGMENT

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

Liu JA:

1. The applicant stood charged with wounding with intent. After trial he was duly found guilty and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. The charge against him is that on 19 December 1993 outside City Hall together with a group of people, he wounded the victim with intent to cause him grievous bodily harm. The applicant initially told the police that he was not at the scene. Subsequently, he admitted in his statement that he stabbed the victim, but he claimed that the victim was in fact the trouble-maker who had first wounded him with a screw-driver. He told the judge of earlier encounters in which he was accosted by the victim and his group. He told the judge that he did not intend to inflict the wound; it was an accident. The knife was said to have been snatched from a member of the victim's group. There were no finger prints of the applicant found on the weapon. In addition to his cautioned statement admitting the stabbing, he was positively identified by the victim at an identification parade. The judge took into consideration the assertions of the applicant, bearing specifically in mind his defence of lack of intent and accident. Guided by the trite principle that the prosecution would have to satisfy the court of his guilt in the offence charged beyond reasonable doubt, the judge received the evidence tendered at the trial, gave it his proper consideration and came to the conclusion that he was sure of the guilt of the applicant. The judge accordingly convicted him as charged.

2. We have considered the home-made Grounds of Appeal of the applicant, together with the statement he submitted earlier today as well as the other matters he has canvassed before us. We can find no substance in any of these matters advanced by the applicant. The conclusion reached by the judge cannot be interfered with. His application for leave to appeal against conviction therefore stands dismissed.

3. The applicant also seeks leave to appeal against sentence. The principal ground in support of his application is that the sentence is too long. The judge took into consideration the age of the applicant, his clear record as well as his family and other circumstances. Also taken into account was the fact that the victim did not suffer permanent injury. Nevertheless, the wounds were substantial. There was a 4 cm wound just below the left costal margin, penetrating into the abdomen causing lacerations of the victim's liver and his stomach. There was also a minor wound over the upper rib of the victim. For the weapon used and the circumstances in which these wounds were inflicted, in all the circumstances we find the term of three years appropriate. Consequently, the application of the applicant for leave to appeal against sentence is also denied.