R. v. HO YUK WUN

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No.353
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Power, Ag. C.J.:

1. This applicant faced a charge of wounding with intent. It was particularized that he and two others on 19th November 1995, at classroom No.2 in Shek Pik Prison on Lantau Island, unlawfully and maliciously wounded Tsui Shing-yau with intent to cause him grievous bodily harm. He pleaded guilty before Judge Christie in the District Court and was sentenced to imprisonment for three years.

2. The facts indicate that at about 5 p.m. on the day charged the injured person was talking to two other inmates when the three accused appeared from behind. One of them stabbed him on the back with a sharp object and when he turned he saw the applicant holding a pair of what he described as white sharp objects trying to stab at his eyes. As it transpires these white sharp objects were sharpened chopsticks which had been adapted for use as a weapon not only by sharpening but also by enclosing them in a paper handle. The injured person warded off the applicant, who was the 1st defendant at trial, and the 2nd defendant then stabbed him on the back and neck. He also had a similar sharp object. At the same time the 3rd defendant stabbed him on the head. The attack lasted for about one minute. Photographs of the victim showed that he suffered quite significant wounding to the head and it appears also to his right hand and to his back.

3. As the judge indicated this was a deliberate and vicious attack by three persons armed with home-made weapons upon a single victim. The weapons were capable of causing quite severe injuries and it was fortuitous that the injuries suffered were no worse than abrasions and lacerations.

4. The trial judge properly noted the need for a deterrent sentence and the potential for serious injury given the nature of the attack and the weapons used. In all the circumstances we are unable to say either that his starting point of four years was wrong or that the final sentence of three years was manifestly excessive. The application must be refused.