HKSAR v. WONG LIT MAN

DCCC 458/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 458 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of inflicting grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 19 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance.

2.  On 27 April this year, the defendant attacked the victim during a confrontation with a very sharp, brand new paper cutter which he had purchased just before he met the victim.

3.  The victim was an ex-colleague of the defendant’s.  The victim was still a colleague of the defendant’s divorced wife, who worked at the same company.  The defendant, just prior to the offence, had become convinced his ex-wife was having an affair with the victim.  The defendant, despite the divorce, still lived under the same roof as his ex-wife.

4.  On that particular day, the defendant called the victim and wanted a chat.  They arranged to meet, and ultimately met at the victim’s office.  The defendant blamed the victim for calling his wife often. An argument ensued, and it became physical.

5.  The victim then felt his neck had been cut with something hard and sharp.  They were separated, and the police were called. The defendant stayed at the scene.

6.  Clearly the injury was serious.  From the photographs one can see a lot of blood, and there are photographs of the victim who sustained a cut that ran from his ear down his neck, shoulder and chest. The facts say he received 40 stitches.  He was sent to Tuen Mun Hospital, where he was operated on, and in fact in intensive care.  He ultimately remained in hospital for five days.

7.  The best mitigation is the defendant’s plea of guilty.  The defendant is 51 years old, and until now has had a clear record. He is the father of two grown-up daughters.  Quite naturally, the Magistracy Court, when the defendant was brought up after his arrest, called for two psychiatric reports.  Both reports found the defendant fit to plead.  However, they both found the defendant was suffering from depression with morbid jealousy, as well as some alcohol abuse.  Both psychiatrists recommended a hospital order.  In fact, the defendant has been in Siu Lam receiving treatment from arrest to date.

8.  The obvious course of action for me to take after the defendant’s plea was to obtain two up-to-date psychiatric reports. The two psychiatrists are of the opinion the defendant now does not require in-patient treatment any longer.  Both say he has responded well to treatment and, with the passage of time, the defendant is now mentally stable.  Most importantly, there are no signs of depression or any psychiatric illness. There is no need for a hospital order now, but both recommend outpatient treatment to continue.

9.  I heard mitigation in full on the last occasion.  Mr Poon has said all he can say in mitigation, and obviously from the four reports I have seen, there are more details of the defendant’s background.  Moreover, I have four letters that I have received.  The defendant has written a letter expressing his remorse and grief for causing the victim harm.  I have a letter from his ex-wife, who asks for leniency and explains the defendant is a caring man and has never previously exhibited any violent traits.  There is also a letter from the defendant’s father, who is wheelchair-bound, and says the defendant is a filial son.  And lastly, perhaps most significantly, there is a letter from the victim that says he has forgiven the defendant for the attack.  There are many friends and family in court here today to support the defendant.

10.  On the last occasion the defence suggested perhaps a community service order may be appropriate, and referred me to a case, HKSAR v Yuen Hon, a District Court case, 210/2012.  I have read that case, but distinguish it for two reasons.  In that case, the defendant was seriously provoked, and the injuries suffered by the victim were significantly less serious.

11.  Here, the defendant bought a cutter and took it to confront the victim, and the injuries he suffered were serious.

12.  I accept at the time the defendant was suffering from severe depression.  However, his actions were serious.  Thankfully, treatment in the adjournment period whilst he has been in custody seems to be successful.

13.  There are no guidelines for sentencing this charge.  Sentencing will depend on the facts of each case.  However, in the facts of this case, I find a term of imprisonment appropriate.

14.  Defendant, please stand up.  I would normally take a starting point of 18 months, looking at the facts here.  However, I am going to reduce this starting point to 12 months for the following reasons.  I accept that a mental issue has caused a normally not violent man to commit this offence.  I accept the psychiatrists’ reports that you were suffering from depression with morbid jealousy and assumed your ex-wife was having an affair with the victim.  In essence, you are a man with a prior clear record who acted out of character, and the reason for that has been taken into account.

15.  With that 12-month starting point, because you have pleaded guilty, you are entitled to a discount of one‑third.

16.  After that discount is applied, for this offence you are sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment.  Do you understand that sentence?

DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.