THE QUEEN v. CHENG SHU WAI

Headnote

Sentecne after plea of not guilty. Offence - wounding with intent. Applicant aged 20 years. Triad revenge attack using knives. Applicant suffered 14 chop wounds and was hospitalized for 9 days but has recovered and now suffered only scarring at the sight of each wound. Sentenced to 5 years.

Held: Even when full weight was given to the age of the Applicant, this was an appropriate sentence.

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

JUDGMENT

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

Power, J.A.:

1. This is the judgment of the Court.

2. The applicant was charged that he, together with HO Chi-wah and other persons unknown, on the 13th August 1989 at Old Main Street, Aberdeen, wounded SO Kin-lam with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. He pleaded not guilty to that charge and was, after trial before Deputy Judge Gall and a jury, found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for five years. He now appeals against that sentence.

3. The appeal, conducted by Mrs. Jackson-Lipkin, has been advanced upon an ad misericordiam basis. She informs the court that since the applicant, who is 20 years of age, has been in prison over the last seven months, he has realized the wrong and criminality of what he did and has determined that he will live a lawful life hereafter, will obtain a job and will help to support his family.

4. The facts upon which the Crown relied in establishing the offence showed a typical gang attack.  A person known as NG Ming-wah, a member of the Fuk Yee Hing Triad Society, was attacked by members of the Lo Fuk Triad Society, was chopped and suffered serious injuries and was sent to hospital. The attack upon the victim, So Kin-lam, was a revenge attack by the applicant and others in which the applicant wielded a knife chopping the victim. While the effect of the wounds was, it is true, not as serious as it might have been, the applicant was hospitalized for nine days and one needs only to look at the photographs to ascertain how serious they were. They were fourteen chop wounds to the body and arms, there was one chop wound under his left ear and there was one chop wound to the top of his head. He suffers permanent scarring from each of those wounds. They were the result of a deliberate attack, both prolonged and vicious. The trial judge said when sentencing:

"You have been found guilty after trial of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

 

        You're aged 20 years, and are in employment. I have taken into account your background as it has been related to me and noted that in 1987, you were convicted of two counts of wounding, section 17, the same offence which you have been convicted today. That does not increase your sentence but it militates against reduction of it.

 

        Although you are young, the attack was a savage one and in overall terms, it is clear that there was a triad element.  It is also clear that revenge must have played a part in what you did.

 

        This type of behaviour cannot be tolerated and you are sentenced to five years imprisonment."

5. We cannot do better than echo the sentiments expressed by the trial judge in those words. The ad misericordiam plea in circumstances such as this must fall upon deaf ears. The community is entitled to have it demonstrated that the courts regard triad revenge attacks with the utmost seriousness. We are fully aware of the youth of the accused and that the sentence of five years was a long sentence to be imposed upon a man of his age. It was, nonetheless, in the circumstances, an appropriate sentence and nothing has been said that would indicate that there is any proper ground for us to interfere therewith.

6. The application for leave to appeal against sentence will therefore be dismissed.