HKSAR v. WONG CHI HING

DCCC 820/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 820 OF 2015

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  Wong Chi Hing you have pleaded guilty to one charge of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 17 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance[1].

2.  Full particulars of the offence are set out in the facts admitted by you on 5 November.  In summary at 10:30 p.m. on 2 August this year you had a heated dispute with your wife over the family finances.  During the dispute you went to the kitchen and took out a fruit knife, which you used to try and stab your wife.  You told your wife you would stab her to death and then commit suicide. Your wife was scared and struggled with you to avoid being attacked. 

3.  You then returned to the kitchen and this time took out a chopper.  When you tried to chop your wife on the head she grabbed hold of your hand to stop the attack. You calmed down and stopped attacking your wife when she promised to give you some money. 

4.  In the struggle your wife received a 2cm laceration wound on her left hand, which caused her hand to bleed and two minor abrasions on her left arm.  Your wife did not however go to hospital to receive medical treatment.  Photographs of the injuries, taken the following day when your wife reported the matter to the police, have been submitted to court.  I am told your wife has made a full recovery from her injuries.  You were arrested when you surrendered to the police. 

Mitigation

5.  In passing sentence I take into account everything said on your behalf by Miss Chow together with the content of the psychiatric, psychological, medical and background reports.  You cannot be given credit for a clear record having convictions for assaulting police officers in 2010. 

6.  I am told that in 2012 you had an accident at work resulting in you having difficulty in walking.  Most of the time you have to use a wheelchair.  As a result you are unable to work.  The medical report details your disability and reference to psychiatric treatment whilst on remand.  With assistance you can walk with a stick.  The psychiatrist states you are mentally fit to serve any sentence.

7.  After all the damages received from the accident had been used up the family experienced financial difficulties.  This has led to you feeling under pressure and depressed.  On the day of the incident, unable to control your emotions, you attacked your wife when she refused to give you some money.  You are remorseful for what you have done and have apologised to your wife many times when she visits you on remand. 

8.  Miss Chow says you had no real intention to hurt your wife.  You told the psychiatrist that you did not intend to hurt or kill your wife and that out of impulse you just wanted to threaten her.  Similarly you told the clinical psychologist that you did not intend to hurt your wife and the probation officer that you intended only to scare your wife.

9.  Although you may have only wanted to scare your wife, by using a knife and then a chopper there was a real risk that your wife may be seriously injured.  I am told that you realised this but nevertheless continued to threaten your wife.  You were therefore reckless as to whether your wife would be injured.  It is on this basis you have pleaded guilty to the charge and upon which basis I will sentence you. 

10.  I accept this was an emotional outburst by you. You have been diagnosed to suffer from mixed anxiety and depressive disorder.   The clinical psychologist is of the opinion that you acted under impulsivity, poor emotion control and negative emotions arising from being made unemployed and other life stressors.  Your remorse and insight into your offending is said to be rather superficial and that having a tendency to use violence to settle your daily conflicts, re-offending is assessed to be moderate.   

Guidelines

11.  There are no guidelines to sentence.  The courts take a serious view of domestic violence.  Domestic violence of any kind cannot be tolerated.  Deterrent sentences are required not only to deter the individual but also to deter those persons like-minded to use violence to resolve domestic disputes.

12.  In HKSAR v Hau Ping Chuen[2] the Court of Appeal referred to the usual range of sentence for wounding with intent being described as 3-12 years.  There are cases where a lower sentence has been held appropriate.  As the court noted there were a host of wounding with intent decisions which might be used in favour of a lenient view whereas others favour a stricter view.  The court went on to say  that:

“At the end of the day, a sentencing court obtains a ‘feel’ for the appropriate result by regard to the attitude of courts over a period of time to a great variety of circumstances.”

13.  In HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat[3]the court listed a number of relevant factors to be considered in determining the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the offender, including the extent to which the assault was premeditated; the reasons or motivation underlying the assault upon the victim; the mental or emotional state of the assailant at the time of the assault; whether alcohol or drugs contributed to the actions of the assailant; whether the assault was committed by the assailant alone or as part of a group; the type of weapons employed; the level of force or aggression and the persistence with which the assault was pressed home; the injuries caused to the victim and the effect of the assault upon the victim and those close to him or her.

14.  Inthe Secretary for Justice v Hung Kar Chun[4] the Court of Appeal said that the courts would not tolerate attacking another person with a lethal weapon such as a chopper or knife on minor provocation or while having a dispute, and that the court would, in dealing with this kind of case, impose more severe punishment as a deterrence. 

15.  Fortunately the injuries sustained by your wife were not more serious.  Whilst accepting this was an emotional outburst by you and not pre-meditated, this must be viewed against the background that in December last year you also threatened to kill your wife and your young son.  On that occasion you were bound over by the court[5]. I have read the facts on which you were bound over, which show the threat also arose out of a dispute with your wife.  This is not to punish you twice for the earlier incident.  Your action on this occasion demonstrates a course of conduct towards your wife and a complete disregard for the previous court order (see HKSAR v Lee Kin Wah)[6].

Forgiveness

16.  In the mitigation letter written by your wife she has forgiven you and hopes you will be released soon so that the family may be reunited.  Your wife told the probation officer that your son missed you very much and that for the sake of the son, she had forgiven you.  Your wife however warns you that if you use violence again she will leave you.  Hopefully with the help of the Family & Child Protective Services Unit and that your family will be eligible for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance at the end of the year, there will be no re-offending. 

17.  In the R v Buchanan[7] as applied in Secretary for Justice v Chau Wan Fun[8], the court held that the fact the offence was committed within a domestic context and the victim had forgiven the offender, did not deflect from the duty of the court to impose a sentence appropriate to the gravity of the offence.  

18.  Taking into account all the circumstances including that you used a knife and a chopper; the injuries sustained by your wife are not serious and from which she has fully recovered; your wife has forgiven you; at the time you suffered from mixed anxiety and depressive disorder and acted out of an emotional outburst; and conscious always of the need for individual justice, I am satisfied the proper sentence after trial is 18 months imprisonment.   Giving you full credit for your plea of guilty you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. 

Breach of the binding over order

19.  Your conviction today places you in breach of the binding over order.  I have considered ordering you to pay the $1000 bond upon your release from prison.  I do not, however, wish you to return home and immediately face further financial difficulty in paying the bond.  You have been to prison for attacking your wife.  In the circumstances I am satisfied that is sufficient punishment from which you should learn you cannot resort to threats and violence to resolve family disputes.