HKSAR v. ROKA SIJAN

DCCC 436/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 436 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  I have convicted the defendant of two Section 17 wounding offences. I have found he unlawfully and maliciously wounded PW1 and PW2 with intent that they suffer grievous bodily harm. The defendant used a kukri knife, a lethal weapon, to attack them both. The defendant is convicted after trial.

2.  In my findings, the evidence was strong.

3.  The first victim, PW1, identified him on the day to the police and then six months later at an identification parade.  PW1 knew the defendant before the attack.  As I have said in my verdict at length, there is CCTV footage that shows the attack.  It also shows the defendant fleeing from the scene, having taken off his shirt and being led away by two others.

4.  Although I gave full details in my verdict, I will not repeat myself, but I will summarise it here.

5.  PW1, 2 and 3 worked together in a bar, finishing that morning at about 6 or 7 am.  They all went for a drink together to the Buddha Lounge.  PW3 and the defendant used to be in a relationship.  It ended badly for the defendant when she married another man in February 2015 without telling him.  He clearly suspected something because in about June 2015 he went with others to an address in Kowloon to find her.  He found her there with another man he discovered to be her husband.  Despite this scenario, PW3 said that she and the defendant had spoken on the phone several times after the breakup. 

6.  On that material morning, 18 July, he saw PW3 when she was with PW1 and 2, and slapped her.  She said nothing was said or done before the slap.  His evidence was that he lost control and slapped her. The evidence is also that PW1 stepped in and pushed him away before he could slap PW3 again. 

7.  After this, prosecution witnesses left by the rear door.  Not long after, PW1 and PW2 headed towards the front entrance of the bar.  I am sure the defendant and his friends were at the entrance of the Buddha Lounge. 

8.  From the CCTV footage and PW1 and 2’s evidence, one can see how this developed.  PW1 and the defendant were most likely verbally abusing each other.  PW1 wanted to go towards the defendant to confront him.  PW2 and another man try their hardest to stop him.  PW2 clearly sensed the danger in the situation.  They try hard, but do not succeed in preventing him from going towards the defendant. 

9.  However, whilst almost wrestling with PW1 to stop him, it is the defendant who runs at them.  He is swinging a kukri and strikes out.  PW2 received one blow to his arm.  At that time he was still trying to pull PW1 away.  That one blow fractured his ulna.  That means the knife had to have been very sharp and the force significant.  This was an attack with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

10.  PW2 retreats, as does everyone around the defendant when he slashes at PW1.  PW1 sustains injuries described as multiple chop injuries over his neck, left elbow, left wrist, left leg, left thigh. Photographs of the scars that remain show how frenzied the attack must have been.  The neck scar is over 12 centimetres long and wraps around his neck.

11.  Both men have not fully recovered and this happened nearly two years ago. 

12.  One can see how frenzied the attack was from the CCTV footage.  There are men jumping backwards and moving away.  They are clearly avoiding the kukri.  No one could have helped PW1 at that moment.  If he had not had the strength to get up and run away, I do not think he would be here to give evidence.  That is how serious this case is.  I have not seen injuries like this in a case before me.

13.  The defendant had a clear record.  He is now 23 years old.  He was 21 years old at the time of the offence.  He married months after the attack and his wife is now in Hong Kong.  He knew the same day that the police were looking for him, yet he did not come back for six and a half months.  I take into account that he was working prior to his leaving Hong Kong, but has not worked since his arrest.

14.  Mr Ross has said all he can say in mitigation. There is not much Mr Ross can say.

15.  The maximum sentence for a Section 17 offence is life imprisonment.  There are no tariffs for these offences.  Sentences are case specific. 

16.  There are relevant factors that exist, that mean the  sentence should be at the higher end of the scale.  Those include the fact the assault or the attack was in public.  It was at 10 am on a Sunday and from CCTV footage there were many people walking up and down that section of Hollywood Road, including children.  The attack continued when PW1 was on the ground and unable to defend himself at all.  There was no evidence the defendant was provoked by PW1 to such an extent that it could justify such a response.  PW1 in particular suffered very serious and lasting injuries.

17.  Defendant, please stand up.

18.  Having taken these factors into account, as well as the factors concerning each victim, I find a global sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment appropriate.  I see no reason to consider any discount from that sentence.

19.  Charge 1, I sentence the defendant to 5 years’ imprisonment.

20.  Charge 2, I sentence the defendant to 4 years’ imprisonment.

21.  These sentences are to be served concurrently. 

22.  That is a total of 5 years’ imprisonment.

COURT: Do you understand that sentence?

DEFENDANT: (Answers in English) Yes.