HKSAR v. YUEN PAK HUNG

DCCC 1310/2023

[2025] HKDC 377

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1310 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant is convicted of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a)  of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212, on his own plea and agreement to amended Summary of Facts.

Facts

2.  At 10:20 pm on 26 August 2023, while the victim was outside the clinic closing its gate and was about to leave, all of a sudden, the defendant approached him from behind and stabbed him at the rear of his right ear and his back near the neck area with a pair of red scissors (approximately 20-centimetre in length).  The victim resisted and they struggled with each other as the defendant continued to attempt to attack the victim with his scissors.  The victim fell to the ground and yelled for help.  A passers-by heard the screaming.  He told the victim and the defendant to stop, and the defendant told him that “it was personal”.  The passer-by then called the police and asked his friend to come and help. 

3.  The defendant subsequently fled the scene and the passers-by followed him to where he resided.  During the pursuit, the passer-by heard a sound of some metal dropping but he did not see what it was.  The defendant was later intercepted and arrested by police for wounding. 

4.  Under caution at the scene, the defendant admitted that he stabbed the victim with the scissors.  He further admitted that he discarded the scissors when he walked past a construction site. 

5.  In the video-recorded interview, the defendant said under caution that:

(a)  He purchased the scissors at around noon on the day in question.

(b)  Afterwards, he walked past the clinic and lingered around there.

(c)  At around 10:20 pm, while the victim was closing the gate to the clinic, he stabbed the victim near his right ear with the scissors twice.

(d)  He explained that he stabbed the victim because he had experienced pain and discomfort since receiving a dental treatment from the victim on 22 July 2023.

6.  The victim was sent to hospital on the material date.  Medical examination showed injuries sustained by him as a result of the present incident as:

(a)  a 2-centimetre through-and-through laceration over the victim’s right ear;

(b)  a 1-centimetre laceration over the right post-auricular area;

(c)  a 0.5-centimetre superficial stab wound over the victim’s right upper back, just below the neck area; and

(d)  a 15-centimetre superficial laceration over the right elbow and arm.

7.  The victim was later discharged from hospital after being treated with sutures and sterile strips.  He was given 7 days sick leave. 

Criminal Record

8.  The defendant has a clear record. 

Mitigation

9.  The defendant is age 69.  He has not received much education and is single with no children.  He was raised by his mother since he was small together with 4 siblings.  At the time of offence, he lived with his two elder brother in a public housing estate.  It was said that he enjoyed a close and happy relationship with his siblings and their children. 

10.  Defence counsel lodged with court mitigation letters from the defendant, his brothers and the nieces.  They all say the defendant is a person of good character, a filial son and a loving uncle.  The defendant says he is very remorseful as to what he has done.  He has been stupid and reckless.  He says that the cause of the commission of the offence was he was dissatisfied with the treatment of the victim, which resulted in 30 days pain after the dental treatment.  He was upset because the victim was a bit irresponsible and carried an indifferent attitude when he complained to the victim about his ongoing pain. 

11.  Defence counsel emphasised that the defendant has a clear record.  She submitted that the defendant now understands he should not use violence and he is willing to tender apologies to the victim.

12.  Defence counsel conceded that the usual range of sentence for wounding with intent is 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment, and that the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [2013] 6 HKC 225 and HKSAR v Ma Tik Lun Dicky [2015] 1 HKLRD 380 have provided important guidance for the sentence of these cases. 

13.  Defence counsel also submitted that the scissors purchased by the defendant was originally for the purpose of dealing with the floor mat in his house.  But he did bring along the scissors before he went out of his home and assaulted the victim. 

14.  Defence counsel submitted that:

(a)  The attack on the victim was not very premeditated and in any event not a sophisticated one.

(b)  The underlying motivation of the assault was the toothache of the defendant after the treatment by the victim.

(c)  It was noted by the victim and his nurse 10 days before the incident that the defendant was already emotionally unstable due to the toothache.

(d)  The defendant was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of commission of the offence.

(e)  The defendant committed the offence alone.

(f)  The weapon used was a pair of scissors, as those available in stationery stores.

(g)  The medical report of the victim provided information on the level of force of the attack, the injuries caused, and the effect of the assault upon the victim.

15.  It was also said that:

(a)  The defendant was provoked because of the long period of pain due to the dental treatment by the victim and that there was no aftercare treatment to him by the victim.

(b)  The assault took place in a public place.

(c)  There was no evidence that PW1 was unable to defend himself after the fall.

(d)  There was no evidence that the assault was continued after the fall of the victim.

(e)  The victim was discharged from hospital on the same day as the assault.

(f)  The defendant was co-operative to the police, he made a full and frank admission to his wrong, and helped the police to retrieve the pair of scissors.

Discussion

16.  Before sentencing, this court has carefully considered all that was submitted on behalf of the defendant as well as the mitigation letters lodged.  

17.  On conviction upon indictment of this offence, a person is liable to imprisonment for life. 

18.  For wounding with intent offences, there is no tariff or sentencing guideline.  The actual sentence to be imposed obviously depends on the particular facts of the case.  In the case of Secretary for Justice v Hau Ping Chuen [2008] 4 HKLRD 673, the Court of Appeal said that the usual range of sentence for such an offence lies between 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment. 

19.  In the Chan Chun Tat case, the court sets out a number of factors to be considered in sentencing of such offence in order to determine the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the defendant.  In the Ma Tik Lun Dicky case, the court sets out the aggravating factors for wounding cases in paragraph 41 of the judgment. 

20.  Defence counsel informed this court that the defendant does not suffer from any psychiatric illness.  For this reason, the court is not going to call for psychiatric report before sentencing. 

21.  The defendant purchased the pair of scissors on the day when he assaulted the victim.  This court does not accept that he bought the scissors for the purpose of dealing with a floor mat for the very obvious reason that scissors was not the appropriate tool for dealing with a floor mat.  In any event, before the defendant went to the vicinity of the clinic before the assault, he took the scissors with him.  It was also agreed that the defendant lingered for some time outside the clinic, obviously, to wait for the victim to come out of the clinic before he actually assaulted him.  The assault was clearly planned and premeditated. 

22.  The defendant admitted that he assaulted the victim because of the ongoing pain that he suffered after the dental operation by the victim.  He was objectively of the view that the same resulted from mismanagement by the victim and he also found the victim to be irresponsible.  This court does not accept that the same would amount to provocation by the victim, though this might explain why the defendant assaulted the victim. 

23.  The defendant committed the offence alone using the scissors in question.  From the photo, one can see that the blade of the scissors was 8-centimetre in length and has a very sharp end.  It appears to be quite a lethal weapon. 

24.  From the agreed amended Summary of Facts, the defendant did not stop the assault on the victim after he stabbed the victim twice.  He did not stop even after the passers-by started to intervene.  His assault was continuing. 

25.  The medical reports listed the physical injuries on the victim.  One could see that the injuries was manifold and some injury was not far from the carotid artery of the victim.  The photos of the injuries however was unable to show how proximate the injury to the carotid artery, in particular the “0.5-centimetre superficial stab wound over victim’s right upper back just below the neck region”.  It was lucky for the victim and the defendant that the injuries resulted was not as serious as they could be, as the victim was only given 7 days sick leave as a result. 

26.  This court does not have a victim impact assessment report but one would have thought, and reasonably so, that whenever the victim locked his clinic after a day’s work, he would revisit in his mind the assault by the defendant on him at least for some time. 

27.  Defence counsel submitted that the defendant was co-operative with police as he admitted throwing the scissors on his way back home after the attack.  This is true, but the court also noted that in the defendant’s first statement to police, he had misled the police and said that he did not know the victim.  

28.  Considering all that was before the court, the appropriate sentencing starting point would be 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. 

29.  The defendant has pleaded guilty and is therefore entitled to full one-third sentencing discount.  It is said that he was a man previously of good character but authorities say that the one-third sentencing discount has already subsumed the good character sentencing discount.  The defendant is therefore sentenced to 2 years 2 months’ imprisonment for the offence. 

30.  This is a case where a patient dissatisfied with the treatment by his own dentist, and resorted to violence to resolve his grievance.  This must be deterred.  The victim should know by now that he should have reported the case to the Dental Council for the latter to determine if his complaint is well founded, and if so for the council to follow up on the matter, and not foolishly and recklessly assault the victim.