HKSAR v. LEE KIM HUNG

DCCC586/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 586 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to four offences of criminal damage, each contrary to section 60(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200, and to one offence of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212.

2. You admitted the facts in respect of the offences to which you pleaded guilty and I convicted you.  Three offences of criminal damage were ordered to be left on file and not to be proceeded with without the leave of this court or the Court of Appeal. 

3. Briefly what happened is this: Miss Hui Mei-yin, PW1, is an indigenous villager residing at House 14, Lot 314, Kwun Hang Tsuen, Sai Sa Road, Ma On Shan, she also owned a container house, Lot 317, DD218, and an empty lot, Lot 301, DD218.  You occupied House 14B which is Lot 316.  I understand that you are not an indigenous villager yourself.  From October 2011 to early April 2012, PW1 made continuous reports of damage to House 14, container house and her vehicle to police.  At 9 am on 8 October last year, PW1 found the keyhole of the padlock at the container house had been damaged.  She also found that the lock of the metal grille of House 14 damaged in a like way, this latter incident being charge 2. 

4. Between 2 and 3 am on 15 November last, PW1 was awakened by a noise outside House 14 and saw several unknown males outside acting suspiciously.  Whilst that is of little significance, however, later that morning while feeding her dog at the empty lot, someone threw stones at her vehicle causing damage.  She reported this to police, that is charge 3.

5. On 1 December at 10.30 pm, she checked her vehicle and found it had been damaged.  At 6.30 am on 2 December, she found fresh cracks to the windscreen, that is charge 4. 

6. At 10 am on 9 April of this year she found four air-conditioning pipes, two neon lights, a window and a piece of canopy removed from the container house and that is charge 7.  She recovered most of these items from the refuse station.

7. At about 9.45 am on 2 May of this year, PW1 was returning home and near House 19 she felt pain to her left rear skull caused by a sharp object.  She looked back to find a masked male holding a stone.  PW1 stepped back but the male stepped towards her.  PW1 pulled off the mask and recognised you who occupied House 14B.  You attacked PW1 with the stone.  In the course of the attack, you dropped your mobile phone and wallet.  PW1 tried to get hold of these but you attacked her again with the stone.  You fled leaving the mobile phone and the wallet behind.  That is charge 8.  The wallet contained your ID card, your China Re-entry Permit and a staff card for Morning Express Couriers. 

8. The police were called and PW1 was sent to hospital.  There she was treated and received three stitches to a laceration of her scalp and her eyebrow. 

9. You were arrested on 2 May this year.  In a video‑recorded interview admitted inter alia that morning, PW1 took photos of you without your consent and swore at you.  For revenge, you prepared to attack her with the stone and wore a mask.  PW1 resisted forcibly and you dropped the stone and fled.  By this time you had already disposed of the clothes you were wearing at the time, you dropped your wallet and mobile phone whilst doing it. It seems that PW1 denied the allegations you made against her.

10. In a second video-recorded interview of 9 April of this year, you admitted committing the 7th charge out of revenge and then in a third interview you admitted committing offences 2, 3 and 4.  I do not intend to go into the details of those as you admitted those today. 

11. You admitted to 35 previous convictions on 27 occasions.  It was brought to my attention, I take note that items 26 and 27 were committed subsequently to these offences and that you have now completed your sentence in respect of those offences.  You have two previous convictions for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and you have numerous offences involving dangerous drugs.

12. On your behalf Mr Fung entered mitigation.  He said that you substantially agreed with the factual basis of the antecedent statement except that you did not agree that you had any triad affiliations. He pointed to your record which tended to support this.  I have taken no account of that.

13. He told me that you are divorced but you have a stable girlfriend who you intend to marry, in fact you are making arrangements to marry whilst you serve your sentence.  You are 37 years old.  You had a tragic childhood in that your father passed away when you were but six.  You are the eldest of three children and when you were in Primary 6 your mother abandoned you and went to Taiwan.  Thereafter, the family appears to have been split up and you were brought up by different relatives.

14. Mr Fung said you had demonstrated your remorse by your plea of guilty.  You are a drug addict of longstanding. Referring to your record, he said you have but two offences of violence in the past neither of which was recent.  He invited me to take the view you were not a man who easily resorts to violence. 

15. On your behalf, he produced a relatively recent mental report from Kwai Chung Hospital.  It speaks eloquently of the long-term problems caused by your substance abuse.  These include muttering to yourself, paranoia and irritability.  Mr Fung submitted that these symptoms contributed to the commission of the offences. 

16. Also, he said that you had been subjected to some degree of provocation from the victim and her family.  He said the victim had the habit of videoing residents and places in the village.  He produced a newspaper cutting to support this.  Also, the victim’s family kept numerous dogs which you placed between 10 and 30 which caused problems of noise and hygiene in the village.  He produced a letter signed by 21 other villagers from seven families confirming and supporting this.  He also said that the victim’s family cars caused problems by their alarms going off at odd times.

17. Turning to the offences themselves, he said the injuries were not serious, there was no permanent damage.  The criminal damage whilst it caused inconvenience was not of the worst.  He said it was clear that your girlfriend was sticking by you and he asked me for maximum leniency in this case.

18. I turn now to the sentence.  You are a man with an undistinguished criminal record, a long history of drug addiction and stemming from that addiction demonstrable mental problems.  For the purpose of sentence, I will accept that there was some degree of provocation from the victim and her family, however, you reaction to any provocation was totally and absolutely disproportionate.  In that regard, I will accept that your mental condition played some part.  The acts of criminal damage were mean and caused inconvenience.  The assault itself was sneaky and cowardly.  You armed yourself with a stone, a weapon calculated to cause injury.  It is indeed fortunate for the victim and indeed for you that the injuries caused were not as serious as they might have been and there was no permanent damage.  Nonetheless, the use of a stone to attack someone calls for an immediate prison sentence.

19. My approach has been to take the four criminal damages as a course of conduct and decide what the overall sentence should be in respect of the four offences.  The following sentences will be imposed:-

On charges 2, 3, 4 and 7, I take a starting point on each case of 6 months’ imprisonment. That will be reduced to 4 months for your plea of guilty and each will be served concurrently to each other.

The charge which is charge 8 of wounding with intent, I take as a starting point 27 months’ imprisonment reduced to 18 for your plea of guilty and that will be served consecutively to the 4 months for the criminal damages.

20. Therefore in total you will go to prison for a total of 22 months.