THE QUEEN v. CHONG LEUNG YUK

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Hon. Yang, C.J.:

1. The applicant Chong Leung-yuk was convicted after trial, before Mr. Corrigan, QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court and a jury, of three counts of wounding with intent and one count of unlawful wounding. He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment on each of the wounding with intent counts and 18 months for the unlawful wounding. The trial judge ordered the sentences on two of the wounding with intent counts and the count of unlawful wounding to run concurrently, but two years of the concurrent sentences were to run consecutively to Count 2, namely, a count of wounding with intent. The total term of imprisonment was therefore six years. He now seeks leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence.

2. The victims in the wounding and the applicant were premises known as 2/F, 165-173 King's Road. had not been on friendly terms with some of incident quarrel co-tenants in The applicant the inmates in the flat, and on the day before the in which the woundings occurred, there was a between him and some of the co-tenants, as a result of which the police were called, and he was warned by the police to behave himself.

3. In the early hours of the next morning, i.e. the 19th September 1990, the applicant went into the room of the first victim, a Madam Hung Yuk-chun, with whom he had been cohabiting for some time. This was at about 3 a.m. According to Madam Hung's evidence, the applicant stabbed her in the abdomen and other parts of the body. She tried to snatch the weapon away from him, and in the process her finger was cut. The applicant was seen staggering out of her room.

4. In the other room where the Tsai family occupied, other incidents of wounding occurred. A Mr. Tsai Chin-wan, who occupied the room, had had disputes with the applicant on previous occasions about sub-tenancy matters. The evidence of Mr. Tsai and his wife, Ng, coupled with that of their son and Mr. Tsai's brother Tsoi Ham-fung, was the applicant forced open the door of the Tsai family, in, and attacked Madam Ng and Mr. Tsai Chin-wan. brother Tsoi Ham-fung, who commotion and came across to by the applicant. that went The was in another room, heard the assist and was himself injured

5. It was not disputed that the applicant had a knife hand, and it was that knife which caused the' of his cohabitant, Hung Yuk-chun, and Mr. and Mrs. the other room, and his brother who came to render in his injuries Tsai in assistance to the Tsai family.

6. The question of identity did not really arise even though there was evidence that the rooms were in darkness at the time. As the judge said in his summing-up, these were no strangers and all the inmates knew each other in the flat.

7. When the police arrived, they saw the applicant lying on the floor. He was then taken away to the hospital, together with the injured persons. The judge in his summing-up to the jury put all the evidence fairly and in detail, and there is no suggestion in the grounds of appeal that the summing-up was defective in any way. In his home-made grounds of appeal, the applicant argued that he was aggravated or provoked by Madam Hung Yuk-chun, and he wanted to commit suicide in her room.' Madam Hung in trying to snatch the knife away from him, injured herself by accident. He could not understand why Madam Hung deliberately distorted the facts afterwards.

8. In his submissions to us this morning, he also made the point that there was an important eye witness, a Mr. Wong Ming-chuen who was not called by the prosecution. Mr. Wong was one of the names which appeared on the list of witnesses on the indictment. The applicant was legally represented and there was nothing to prevent Mr. Wong from being called for the defence at the trial.

9. The applicant also made the point that he was half-conscious when he was taken away by ambulance. From that it must be inferred that he could not have had the strength to injure anybody. There is nothing in this argument.

10. In our view, there is nothing in any of the applicant's submissions or written grounds of appeal which cause us concern. As we have said, the trial judge's summing-up was careful, detailed and fair. There was ample evidence upon which the jury could convict.

11. The application for leave to appeal against conviction is therefore dismissed.

12. On sentence, he said he was old and he suffered from various diseases. He is 57 years of age. This is a serious wounding which was committed deliberately upon unsuspected and defenceless victims. We do not think the sentences were excessive. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is therefore also dismissed.