HKSAR v. LOCK CHUN WAI

DCCC 1077/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1077 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant, Lock Chun-wai, pleaded guilty before me to one charge of wounding with intent.

2.  The offence took place on 13 September 2013. The victim, Mr Chan Pan, was a colleague of the defendant.  The incident took place inside the kitchen of a restaurant in Sheung Wan, Hong Kong.  The victim, Mr Chan Chun-lung (PW2) and the defendant were colleagues.  The trio worked as cooks in the restaurant together for about two years.  They were of a good relationship.  At about 3 pm on the day in question, the victim and PW2, discussed with the defendant about the defendant’s poor work performance in the kitchen of the restaurant.  The defendant was irritated and he suddenly picked up a metal container to hit the victim’s head once.  This led to an altercation between the victim and the defendant with exchange of blows.  The victim and the defendant were soon stopped and separated by PW2.  The victim then sat on the floor in the kitchen cleaning his eyeglasses and looking at his mobile phone.  After about 30 seconds, the defendant approached the victim and whispered to the victim, “I want to use the knife to stab you to death”.  The defendant then went to the kitchen rack, took out a knife from the rack and rushed to stab the victim’s upper abdomen once with the knife.  The knife in question is 39 centimetres in length with a 30 centimetre-long blade.  The defendant then pulled out the knife, dropped it on the floor.  He cried, “Please hit me to death”.  PW2, who witnessed the incident, made a report to the police. 

3.  The victim was conveyed to the A&E Department of Queen Mary Hospital for medical treatment and he was in critical condition.  He was alert and noted to have unstable haemodynamic status with low blood pressure and fast pulse rate.  Chest examination revealed air entry equal bilaterally and a vertical penetrating wound over epigastrium below xiphoid was noted.  The victim had undergone two surgery operations.  The injuries included liver, stomach and vascular injury while the vascular injury once causing massive bleeding.  Bleeding was controlled after the operations.  He was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit and was discharged from the hospital on 20 September 2013.

4.  The defendant was arrested inside the restaurant in the afternoon on the same day.  He admitted under caution that he had stabbed the victim out of impulse, he knew he was wrong.  In a subsequent video record of interview, the defendant told the police that the victim used his fist to hit the defendant’s eye area. 

5.  The defendant has hitherto a clear record in Hong Kong.

6.  The defendant is now 18 years old.  He had received Primary and Secondary education in Hong Kong. He worked as a full-time cook at the restaurant in question.  He is single and he lived with his mother before his remand in custody.

7.  I have before me various pre-sentencing reports.  The Training Centre Report of the defendant sets out the background information about the defendant.  I shall not repeat the information set out in detail in the report.  The interview officer in conclusion opines that in order to help the defendant develop more insight into his problems, a period of disciplinary training coupled with statutory supervision would be beneficial to the defendant. 

8.  In the Psychologist’s Report prepared by the clinical psychologist of the Correctional Services Department, the clinical psychologist says at paragraph 10 of the report that:-

“The remand has grown up in a broken family and is a survivor of child abuse. He has normal intelligence but his cognitive and interpersonal problem-solving abilities are limited by his low educational attainment and unsatisfactory socialisation. He has thrived to lead a productive life in the past few years but his interpersonal relationship at work has been marked with over-submissiveness and under‑assertiveness. His emotional instability and his childlike expression seem to have elicited bulling from others and he has withheld from expressing his anger explicitly in aggressive ways. Weapon availability and media exposure to similar incidents, his vulnerability to start and inability to self‑regulate under great stress are related to his aggressive outburst in such a destructive and violent manner in the current offence. He is in need of psychological intervention to prevent him from repeating similar violent behaviours.”

9.  The Clinical Psychologist in paragraph 8 of the same report says:-

“Although the remand’s violent outburst in this offence is alarming in his unpredictability and severity, assessment results indicate that he is not particularly aggressive under normal circumstances and his anger and aggressiveness is usually manifested in the form of verbal aggression.”

10.  The victim in his victim impact statement told the police that after the incident he stills feels frightened when he sees a knife.  He dares not enter the kitchen and thus is still unable to resume his work at the kitchen. 

11.  In the psychological report of the victim, Mr Chan told the psychologist that he was conscious throughout the incident, he experienced intense pain and fear at the time coupled with a sense of impending death.  The clinical psychologist states in paragraph 10 of the report that the victim presents with various symptoms resembling those of post‑traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and the victim is currently receiving clinical psychology service in the Queen Mary Hospital.

12.  Ms Lee, for the defendant, has prepared a realistic and detailed written mitigation.  I have gone through the mitigating letters submitted by Ms Lee.  In the written mitigation, Ms Lee sets out the aggravating features in this case and also various mitigating factors.  The defendant seriously wounded the victim with a lethal weapon.  The stab could have claimed the life of the victim, Mr Chan.  Though Mr Chan survived the stab, he is still suffering from some post-traumatic disorder. 

13.  The defendant is a man of young age, only 18 years old.  He has a clear record.  The crime the defendant committed is an out-of-character act and appears to be an isolated incident.  From the pre-sentencing reports, I learnt that the defendant is a victim of some child abuse at the instance of his mother.  If the defendant were an adult of full age, on the facts of the present case I would have adopted a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment, bearing in mind the use of the lethal weapon and the effects of the attack on the victim.  If I were to sentence the defendant to prison, he would be entitled to one-third reduction for his guilty plea and clear record and be sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the region of 40 months.

14.  But the defendant is a young man of only 18 years old.  I accept the attack was an out-of-character act and all the pre‑sentencing reports indicate that he is in need of psychological treatment from professionals.  He has been in custody since mid-September 2013, in other words he has been in custody for approximately 5 months by now.  I am aware that the average detention time for Training Centre is 18 months.  If I am to sentence the defendant to Training Centre, he has to be in custody for at least 23 months, i.e. the 5 months in custody after arrest plus the average detention time of 18 months. 

15.  In all the circumstances of this case, bearing in mind the recommendations by the clinical psychologist, instead of sending the defendant to prison, in my judgment a Training Centre Order would be more beneficial for his rehabilitation.  I agree with the conclusion and recommendation made by the intake officer of the Correctional Services Department.  All along, the defendant has been able to lead a law-abiding life.  In this case, he acted impulsively.

16.  A period of disciplinary training coupled with statutory supervision will be beneficial to the defendant rehabilitation in that it will assist him and help him to develop more insight into his own problems.  In this case, the choice is really between a term of imprisonment or detention at Training Centre.  After weighing all the factors, I have come to the conclusion that a Training Centre Order is the appropriate sentence that I should pass in this case and the for the reasons stated, for the offence of wounding with intent, I sentence the defendant to be detained at a Training Centre.