HKSAR v. RATTANAVICHAI WICHITTRA

 DCCC16/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 16 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  I convicted the defendant after trial of wounding with intent. The particulars are that on 9 January 2008, at premises at which you lived in North Point, you unlawfully and maliciously wounded a Fanbaen Preecha with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

2.  The victim in this case, PW1, is a Thai national who came to Hong Kong in 1994. He started to cohabit with the defendant in 2001, and they moved to a Room A on the 9th floor of Wing Hing House in Electric Road, North Point in 2007, and they worked in the same restaurant.

3.  In the early hours of the morning of 9 January 2008, the victim returned to the flat. He had been working the previous night as had the defendant, but the victim stayed on allegedly to do some work cleaning up the kitchen. I was sure that on the night in question, after cleaning up the kitchen, instead of making his way home, he went drinking and he probably went to a discotheque or something like that and did not arrive home until sometime between 4 and 5 in the morning.

4.  The defendant had checked up on the whereabouts of the victim. She had rung one of his co-workers at about 3 o’clock in the morning, and the co-worker had told her that they were on their way home, but the victim did not arrive home till considerably later. I was sure that when he did arrive home, the defendant was angry. There was an argument, and the victim told her that he had come straight from work and she did not believe him. I think she was probably right to disbelieve him, and I am sure that there was a heated argument at that stage.

5.  According to the victim, he said there was an argument and following that, he went to bed and he was attacked whilst he was on the bed. According to the defendant, she said the attack was when they were having an argument and she grabbed a chopper and used it in self‑defence.

6.  There was no independent evidence. The defendant might have acted in self-defence at the beginning, but I have no doubt whatsoever on the evidence that her actions went far beyond what would have been reasonable actions in self-defence.

7.  The injuries sustained by the victim were serious. He had cut wounds to his left ear, left middle finger, swollen eye, left subconjunctival haemorrhage. There were deep cuts on the back of his right thigh. Two of them were 6 to 7 centimetres. There were six chop wounds to that leg and one to the other. The exterior tendon was cut. The right-thigh cut involved the gluteus muscles and the vastus lateralis. The injured tendon, muscle and skin were repaired and sutured. The middle-finger fracture was fixed with Kirschner wire. Extensor tendon rehabilitation programme was started, and the victim was treated on 24 January and 4 February. And fortunately, the wounds were healing well.

8.  After the attack on the victim, the defendant phoned the wife of the senior employer at the restaurant where they worked, her husband agreed to come along and take the victim to hospital. The defendant did not go to hospital. She made arrangements to leave Hong Kong the very same day. She left on 9 January and she was intercepted when she returned to Hong Kong on 14 December.

9.  The defendant has a clear record. She is 46 years of age. She is a Thai national, a high school graduate. She worked as a domestic helper when she first came to Hong Kong. She married a Hong Kong resident from whom she is now separated and subsequently started to work at a restaurant with the victim who is nine years her junior. She has been in custody since her arrest in December of 2009.

10.  It has been urged upon me in mitigation that this is a domestic matter. It was a one-off incident, and there was no suggestion of any premeditation. The defendant lost control on the spur of the moment and grabbed a weapon that was to hand. And as I indicated, I am not sure that the offence did not start off in circumstances of self-defence, but I am sure the defendant’s actions did go far beyond acting in self-defence. I was sure that the defendant was subjected to significant provocation. The victim returned home drunk. He had been out clubbing and he lied about it when he got back.

11.  As the counsel for the defendant has said, there is no tariff in cases such as this, but the injuries sustained by the victim were of a serious nature. Looking at all the circumstances, I have decided that an appropriate sentence in this case is one of 2 and a half years’ imprisonment.