HKSAR v. HO YUET HO

DCCC966/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 966 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to four offences of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap.212.

2.  All the offences were committed on the same day at about same time in Yuen Long.  The defendant has admitted a set of facts that set out the offence.  This shows that at about 9 o’clock in the evening of 26 June 2011, a group of young men gathered, and they included the four victims in the four charges.  They were looking for a person with the alias of Billy and they went around Yuen Long trying to locate him.  At some point they came across the defendant and five other men in a park in Sai Ching Street.

3.  They stared at each other but there was no dispute at that time.  They eventually went to a PLB Terminus at Yu King Square in Yuen Long.  At about 23.15 in the evening the defendant appeared, alleging that this group of men had kidnapped a follower of his.  The facts then show the defendant used a chopper to slash PW1 through to 4.  About 8 to 10 people came to reinforce the defendant.  They used fists and kicks.  The victims escaped. 

4.  The defendant was identified by all the victims as the person using the chopper.  The defendant made a confession to the officer-in-charge of the identify parade.    

5.  The victims had medical examinations.  The facts show that PW1 had a wound cut on the right palm and back; PW2 had a wound cut on the right forearm; PW3 had a wound cut on the left back; and PW4 a wound cut on the forearm.

6.  I was also shown photographs of the victims together with some more detailed medical reports about the victims’ state.

7.  This showed that the first prosecution witness had chop wounds over his back right index finger and middle finger and actually received a bone fracture to the right index finger and right middle finger and was subject to physiotherapy.

8.  The other victims’ medical reports showed that they had the cuts or wounds set out in the facts.  There was no indication that a long term injury or disability was suffered by any of the victims other than the scarring from the wounds that they received. 

9.  The defendant is 17 years old.  He has already a fairly substantial criminal record with three previous convictions.  In 2008, he was placed on probation for 18 months for theft; in 2009, he was sent to rehabilitation centre for breach of the probation order and common assault; later in 2009, he was sentenced to training centre for failing to return to the rehabilitation centre.

10.  The defendant is still very young, he is 17 years old.  I obtained a report from the Correctional Services Department to see if there was any programs that were still available to him given his young age.  The only program realistically available would be training centre.  He is in fact suitable for that form of detention. 

11.  The report from the Correctional Services Department has some detail to it.  It shows the defendant was born in China and the elder of two siblings in a working class family. 

12.  The defendant is described as a school underachiever. He was first involved with the police in 2007.  The defendant had during his probation period had been involved with sniffing ketamine and eventually he had been sent to rehabilitation centre in February 2009.  He made steady progress until he failed to return to the centre.  He was sent to a training centre with fair progress was described.  His present offences are attributed to bad associations and recklessness. 

13.  The defendant is described as having superficial reflection on his own problems.  His determination to rehabilitate is in doubt.  It is not possible for the defendant to be sent to a detention centre. He is mentally and physically fit for detention in a training centre and suitable for detention in such a centre. 

14.  The broad conclusion is, in order for the defendant to gain insight into his problems and strengthen his law-abiding concept, another period of disciplinary training coupled with statutory supervision would be beneficial.

15.  The question arises with this defendant is how to approach the question of sentence.  These are serious offences.  Ordinarily for an adult person a sentence of imprisonment would be the normal disposal and for offences of this nature the range of sentencing range is between 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment, but of course, given the nature of the injuries, this would be at the lower end.

16.  The defendant is of course not an adult, he is still only 17 years old.  Still, in his case, the court needs to consider the question of rehabilitation.  Despite his youth the defendant had already been on probation, been to a rehabilitation centre and been to training centre, so he is well on his way in criminal career despite being so young.

17.  The mitigating factors for the defendant are his youth, the fact that despite this being a serious assault using a deadly weapon, the injuries to the victims are not as substantial as they might have been.  These are all young men of a certain age who are prone to resolve their disputes with violence.  The other mitigating factor being the defendant is still young enough to have a change of course in his life before he becomes a recidivist.

18.  The aggravating factor clearly had been the use of such a weapon to inflict substantial damage on four different people. 

19.  I consider that an adult offender committing offences of this nature could expect to receive a sentence of imprisonment overall totalling in the region of 3 to 3½ years for an offence of this nature, but, of course once a deduction for a plea of guilty and remission are taken into account, that is a substantially smaller figure and approaches in term of length the kind of sentence one could expect to eventually receive under a training centre order, so a training centre order would not be a light sentence for the defendant and it would also have the advantage of providing disciplinary training and of course the period of statutory supervision which could protect the public from him.    

20.  I considered that on balance that the defendant can still receive the benefit of a sentence in an institution of the Correctional Services Department, and in this case, of course that institution will be a training centre.

21.  I will order that the defendant serve a sentence of training centre on each charge that he faces, to be served concurrently.