THE QUEEN v. WONG ON LIN

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1992, No.246
(Criminal)

__________________

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

Litton, V-P, giving the judgment of the Court:

1. On 29 May 1992 the applicant Wong On-lin was convicted after trial by jury on one count of throwing a corrosive fluid, namely sulphuric acid, with intent to disfigure and do grievous bodily harm to Lee Yuk-lin who was his wife. The jury’s verdict was unanimous. The trial judge Mr Justice Gall sentenced the applicant to 13 years’ imprisonment.

2. The offence occurred on 25 April 1991 at Flat C2, 26/F Rhine Court, Bonham Road, Hong Kong. The injuries inflicted on the victim were quite appalling.

3. On 19 June 1992, within the 28 days allowed by law, the applicant sought leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence. He did not deny the primary facts alleged against him – that he had poured a corrosive fluid on his wife’s face – but he said his intent was to scare her: she had pushed his hand away and in the confusion the acid accidentally went onto her face, neck and shoulder. That essentially was his defence at his trial. The jury by their unanimous verdict plainly disbelieved his story and concluded that he intended to disfigure his wife.

4. On 18 March 1993 the applicant in the presence of a solicitor signed a notice of abandonment of his appeal against conviction and thereafter his appeal related only to sentence. That was fixed for hearing on 5 July 1993 but the applicant asked for that to be adjourned because he said he was hoping to negotiate a divorce settlement with his wife.

5. Eventually on 20 January 1995 his application for leave to appeal against sentence was heard by the court. One of the grounds of mitigation advanced by him was that he was remorseful. That application was dismissed.

6. On 13 March 1995 he lodged an application for leave to appeal against his conviction out of time, supported by an affirmation which says:

“It is because my private solicitor misled me not to appeal against conviction. I wish to apply to appeal against conviction out of time now.”

7. The truth of the matter is simply this. The applicant had originally sought to appeal against conviction. With his eyes open and upon legal advice he abandoned that appeal, chose to focus purely on his appeal against sentence, pleading remorse. No reasons have been given why this court should treat his notice of abandonment of 18 March 1993 as a nullity. In consequence there is nothing further to hear and the present application is dismissed.