HKSAR v. CHAN KIN MAN and Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1998, No. 203
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Mayo, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The Applicants were respectively D3 and D4 at the trial below. D3 was found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to s.17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212. D4 pleaded guilty to the offence but disputed the factual background. This effectively meant that the prosecution had to prove its case against D4. Both men were sentenced to 2 1/2 years' imprisonment and now seek leave to appeal against the sentences imposed.

2. The assault took place on 8th August 1997 at Pat Heung, in Yuen Long. Some police officers had some premises under surveillance in connection with suspected dangerous drugs activities. One of the officers saw a man, who it later transpired was D1 in the trial below go and speak to a man sitting outside the subject premises. He was joined by three other men two of whom were the Applicants. All of the men went into the building. A short time later the Applicants and one of the other men came from the building carrying clubs. They proceeded to reign blows upon the man sitting outside.

3. The police officers went down to the building and arrested the men. The victim was sent to hospital where it was found that he was suffering from a fracture of his left leg, three broken ribs and a broken right shoulder blade.

4. D3 expresses the view in his Grounds of Appeal that the sentence imposed upon him was excessive. D4 referred to his difficult family circumstances and stated that he wanted to be released so he could support his family.

5. This was a vicious assault which occasioned grievous injuries. The sentences imposed were in no way excessive. Indeed they could be described it was very lenient. The applications are dismissed.

6. As these applications are devoid of merit we order that 3 months of the time which these Applicants spent in custody is not to count towards the sentences that they served.