HKSAR v. CHAN HAU CHI

DCCC 971/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 971 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  At about 9.35 am on 23 July 2013, Mr Cheung Ho-wing, the victim, had an argument with the defendant over the use of a video game machine in an amusement game centre in Mong Kok.  The defendant said to the victim, “If you dare, don’t leave!”  He left the game centre angrily.  The victim continued to play games.

2.  At about 10 am, the defendant returned and used a beef knife to attack the victim from behind.

3.  A report was made.

4.  Police officers arrived and subdued the defendant.  He was arrested.

5.  Under caution, he said, “He fought with me about the playing of a game machine and he fucked my mother, so I went downstairs to buy a knife to chop him.”

6.  The beef knife used by the defendant was 15 inches long, with a blade measured 10 inches and the handle measured 5 inches.  It was the longest beef knife available in the shop where the defendant bought it.

7.  The victim was admitted to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital for emergency treatment and was found to be in critical condition. There were multiple chop wounds over his head and body. 

8.  Medical examination revealed:

(a) a 4.5-centimetre laceration at his right posterior scalp with fracture on palpation;

(b) a 7-cm laceration over right shoulder with humeral head exposed and deltoid muscles partially cut;

(c) a 16-cm laceration over right forearm with multiple muscles cut, including 50-per-cent cut on triceps and 50-per-cent cut on brachialis;

(d) a 4-cm-deep laceration over left medial border of hand with tendon and muscle cut, including a complete cut over sensory ranch of ulna nerve and branch of ulna vessels and partial cut of hypothenar muscles; and

(e) low blood pressure due to heavy bleeding from lacerations.

9.  Emergency operation was carried out on the same day for wound exploration.  Sutures were done on his wounds, as stated below: 

(a) four stitches on his right head;

(b) 55 stitches on his right forearm and shoulder;

(c) three stitches on his left thumb; and

(d) nine stitches on his left palm.

10.  The victim was discharged on 25 July 2013.

11.  According to the victim, the mobility of his right arm is affected and he experiences difficulty in lifting weight with his right hand.

Background and mitigation

12.  The defendant is a 44-year-old man living on public assistance.  He has 30 previous convictions, with six violence related and one for possession of offensive weapon.  He was last convicted for the same offence in August 2010 and sentenced to 4 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

13.  In mitigation, counsel for the defendant tells the court that during the argument in the games centre the victim kept on pushing the defendant and abused him with foul language, insulting his mother, who deserted him when he was only a few months old.  He also lost the bonus points he earned in the game machine, so that he could not continue to play without paying.  He was, therefore, provoked.  The offence was not premeditated.

Consideration of the court

14.  Wounding with intent is a serious offence.  The maximum sentence is life imprisonment.

15.  HKSAR v Yuen Wai Kui, CACC 280/2004, has always been cited to courts to suggest that the range of sentences for this offence should be between 3 and 12 years’ imprisonment.  It must, however, be noted that Tang JA in Yuen Wai Kui also cited a passage of the judgment in AG v Lam Yat Sing, CAAR 14/1992, that “everything will depend so heavily on the particular facts of each case”.

16.  The knife used by the defendant could be a lethal weapon.  It was the longest beef knife he could buy from the shop to attack the victim.  The blade only already measured 10 inches.

17.  I accept that there was a kind of provocation by the victim.  However, it was not such a kind to justify such a serious attack on the victim.

18.  I accept that it was not a premeditated offence.  However, it was also not a spontaneous act of the defendant.  He only returned subsequently to do his cowardly act, attacking the victim from behind.

19.  The injuries on the victim was massive and horrifying, with multiple chop wounds over his head and body.  He was admitted to the hospital in a critical condition.  71 stitches were done on his wounds. Fortunately, he could be discharged after two days.

20.  There is no medical evidence before the court to confirm the victim’s claim of difficulties in moving his right arm and lifting weight with his right hand.

21.  I, therefore, would not assume that there is permanent disability, which may increase the sentence.

22.  However, the injuries as depicted in the photographs produced to the court were appalling.  It would require little imagination to appreciate the lingering effect of such injuries, in particular, to his right hand and arm.

23.  In considering the sentence, apart from the circumstances of the case and the harm caused to the victim, the court must not ignore the interest of the public. 

24.  The defendant has 30 previous convictions, out of which six involved violence and one for possession of offensive weapon in 1988.  He first committed wounding offence in 2002.  He was sentenced to 4 years and 4 months’ imprisonment for wounding with intent in August 2010.  When he committed the present offence, it could not have been long after his release from the prison.

25.  The interest of the public can only lie in favour of a sentence with a real deterrent effect.

26.  Having considered all the circumstances, including the provocation and that the case was not premeditated, I am of the view that the proper starting point should be 6 years’ imprisonment.

27.  I will give the defendant one-third reduction for his plea of guilty.

28.  He is, therefore, sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment.