COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Persons Ordinance, and one count of possession of a dangerous drug. He was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence on 23 September 2024. Today, he confirms his pleas and admission of the Summary of Facts.
The particulars of the 1st count are that on 19 January 2023, outside Kwun Tong Swimming Pool, the defendant unlawfully and maliciously the victim with intent to do grievous bodily harm to him.
When arrested on 14 February 2023, in Room 1615, Ramada Hong Kong Grand Hotel in Kowloon, the defendant had in his possession, 3.83 grammes of cannabis in herbal form, the particulars of the 2nd count.
The victim, a male aged 33, was leaving Kwun Tong Magistrates’ Court when the defendant followed him across the road towards Kwun Tong Swimming Pool. Suddenly and without warning, the defendant ran at the victim from behind and chopped his back from behind twice, left leg twice, and right leg twice with a beef knife, 39 centimetres in length. Passers-by tried to assist the victim and give him first-aid. An ambulance was called and he was sent to hospital. The defendant ran away after the attack.
The defendant threw the beef knife away after he ran but it was found by the police later sweeping the area. The defendant’s fingerprint was found on the outside of a plastic bag containing that knife. The victim’s blood was found on the blade of the beef knife and on the outside of a face mask discarded with the knife.
The victim sustained four lacerations, one laceration on the back of each leg and two over his back, all over 10 centimetres long. As a result of this attack, the victim had to have his left leg amputated from mid-thigh.
The victim was later shown images of the defendant but does not know him, nor could he recall anything about the attack from behind. The police, through excellent investigative work, found the defendant hiding in a hotel room, registered in the name of his girlfriend’s sister and raided this room on 14 February 2023.
The defendant remained silent when arrested and cautioned for wounding the victim with intent. The police also found the herbal cannabis of the 2nd count, which the defendant admitted was for his own consumption.
Mr Khosa has mitigated for the defendant and said all he can say on his behalf. The defendant is now 27 years old, had a clear record and came to Hong Kong from Pakistan when he was 11 years old. His mother has since passed away and his father remarried in Pakistan. He left school in Hong Kong at the age of 15 and started working. When arrested, he was working as a food delivery man.
The defendant got into debt from as early as 2017 when he borrowed money, he says, for his father. That debt increased when his father had a stroke and by 2022 the defendant owed a finance company $100,000. He was disturbed and threatened by debt collectors regularly. Friends could not lend him any money and in January 2023, a friend told him he could earn $100,000 by doing one job and that was to injure the victim.
Initially, the defendant refused to do this, but pressure mounted from debt collectors and his friend persuaded him that he did not have to hurt the victim seriously. In a moment of weakness, the defendant agreed.
The night before the incident, he received a phone call with instructions where to collect the beef knife and where to attack the victim the following morning. He received a photograph of the victim. He was told to slash the victim one or two times. He hung around Kwun Tong Magistracy that morning until he saw the victim come out and cross the road. He attacked him from behind on the pedestrian crossing. He did not intend to cause him serious or life-threatening injuries, just cut him a few times for $100,000.
I have received a letter from the defendant. He writes he is extremely remorseful and at the time of the incident when he agreed to commit this crime, he was in huge financial difficulty and on the day, was under the influence of drugs. I have taken into account the contents of his letter.
However, his explanation and family circumstances carry very little weight in mitigation in light of the seriousness of Charge 1 and these facts.
I have had sight of the victim’s statements and the photographs of his injuries as well as his latest up-to-date situation. Other than having to wear a prosthetic limb and use a walking stick, the amputated wound still consistently causes him pain. The wounds to his back have caused mobility issues. Psychologically, he has insomnia and when he does sleep, he has nightmares of the attack. He does not go out much out of a pathological fear of being attacked again. He was a personal driver before the attack. Since the amputation of his left leg, he has lost his ability to work and earn an income.
The facts is the defendant has utterly ruined the life of the man in his prime. This man has suffered a serious physical disability which must come with substantial mental anguish. He has lost a limb, a permanent disfigurement.
The fact stipulated that the victim suffered long lacerations from behind. Two over his back area, one to the back of his left leg and one to the back of his right leg. This does not appear to be random.
Moreover, this was a calculated, premeditated planned attack, all the more ruthless for the fact it was committed for money. This is a contracted attack carried out on a stranger for money. This is a very serious aggravating factor. The sentence must reflect the fact that any person who wounds or maims for money will receive a severe penalty. There must be a strong deterrent to others.
Additionally, the attack was in a very public place. That particular pedestrian crossing is busy at all times of the day. The attack was based on identifying the victim by a photograph. There was room for a mistake, especially when the defendant admits he was under the influence of drugs at the time.
There are no sentencing guidelines for wounding cases. Each case must depend on its own facts. It has been said that there is a range of between 3 to 12 years term of imprisonment. Mr Khosa has urged me to consider the top of this range because he does accept the facts are very serious. He urges me not to consider a sentence beyond 12 years.
I have taken into account everything said by Mr Khosa. The defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty. The fact he did not in the end receive his reward is irrelevant. The fact that he apologises carries little weight. His father’s poor health conditions similarly, carries little weight. I am not persuaded by the submission that this was not a persistent attack. Four slashes aimed at three vulnerable areas of the body suggests the defendant was focused and his aim was not random.
For the 1st count of wounding, I therefore adopt a starting point of 21 years’ imprisonment. It is a severe sentence, but in my view, a necessary one in light of the circumstances of this count. After credit is given for the defendant’s plea at the earliest opportunity, the starting point is reduced to a sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment.
For the 2nd count of possession of herbal cannabis, I adopt a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment, which I reduce to 4 months and order the sentence to be served concurrently to that sentence of Count 1.
Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to a total of 14 years’ imprisonment.