HKSAR v. CHUNG KAM KI

DCCC 894/2020

[2021] HKDC 1373

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 894 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant faces a charge of "Wounding 17" (Charge 1)  and a charge of "Possession of an imitation firearm" (Charge 2). He pleaded guilty to Charge 1. I granted the prosecution's application to leave Charge 2 in the court file; not to be proceeded against him without leave of court.

Summary of Facts

2.  About 5:35 a.m. on 8 March 2020, in a game centre situated at 1^st Floor, Nos.47-49 Sharp Street East, Causeway Bay ("the Game Centre"), the defendant had a dispute with a man and punched that man.  Mr. Onate (PW1)  and 2 other men tried to break up the altercation.  PW1 and the other 2 men forced the defendant to leave the Game Centre.

3.  Shortly afterwards, when PW1 was going downstairs from the Game Centre, he saw the defendant walking upstairs holding a machete (about 50 cm long)  in his right hand.  The defendant chopped PW1's left forearm, left leg and left thigh with the machete.  He then went downstairs to the Ground Floor and fled.  CCTV footage captured the defendant's attacking acts.

4.  PW1 was admitted to the hospital on the same day.  He was found to have (i)  a 3 cm laceration at left mid-forearm with incomplete ulnar fracture; (ii)  a 6 cm laceration at left proximal anterolateral thigh; and (iii)  a 3 cm laceration over left mid-anterior shin with incomplete tibia fracture.  He was transferred from the Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology to the Department of Medicine in the same hospital on 9 March 2020 (for treatment of an illness unrelated to this case)  and was discharged on 24 March 2020.

5.  The defendant was arrested at his home in Lam Tin in the evening on 8 March 2020. Under caution, he claimed that it was "them" who had hit him.  He now admits that he had unlawfully and maliciously wounded PW1 with intent to do him grievous bodily harm on 8 March 2020.

Mitigation & Sentence

6. The defendant will be 32 next month. He has 12 conviction records, which included 4 offences related to the use of violence (one being Wounding 17[1]). Defence counsel Ms. Woo informed me that the defendant is single and resides with his mother (aged 61). Prior to the present offence, he worked as a garage technician earning about $9,000 per month. Ms. Woo stated that the defendant's mother suffers from anxiety and depression as well as chronic abdominal infection. The defendant is the only care provider of his mother. Letters written by the defendant and his mother were placed before me; their contents are duly noted.

7. In mitigation, Ms. Woo explained that the man with whom the defendant had struggled at the Game Centre had a dispute with the defendant's girlfriend some time ago. Without clarifying their identities and purpose, PW1 and the other 2 men rudely and fiercely forced the defendant to leave the Game Centre. Ms. Woo submitted that the defendant was provoked and felt humiliated. He then fetched a knife from his car and returned to face PW1 and his party. At the staircase, the defendant saw PW1 holding a broom and a dustpan[2]. He impulsively attacked PW1 and fled. Ms. Woo stressed that PW1 suffers no permanent injuries or disfigurement and has recovered fully. Furthermore, the attack against PW1 was short; and only his limbs were injured.

8. I accept that this case might have arisen from the defendant's out-of-control anger. On the other hand, he had left (or was forced to leave)  the Game Centre. Had he been able to control his temper, the matter could have ended right there and then. Yet, he chose to go to his car to fetch a "water melon knife" and returned for a showdown with PW1. Irrespective of how much the defendant resented the treatment by PW1 and the other 2 men, it is plain that he was not allowed to take the law into his own hands.

9. What the defendant did was brutal and uncivilized. PW1's injuries were no doubt serious, needless to say the pain and suffering as well as the agony arising from this traumatic experience. Fortunately, PW1 sustained no permanent disabilities as a result of the defendant's attack. I also accept that he probably did not have to remain in the hospital for so long but for an illness unrelated to this case.

10. Sentencing of wounding offences is case specific and there is no tariff as such; however, sentences in the range of 3 to 12 years' imprisonment are by no means uncommon. Though dating back 9 to 14 years ago, the defendant's violence-related convictions are relevant and cannot be ignored. Having considered all aspects of this case, I adopt a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment. With his timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 2 years. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence the defendant to 2 years' imprisonment.