HKSAR v. YOU BIFANG

DCCC1156/2008

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1156 OF 2008

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  The defendant pleads guilty before me today to one charge of Wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance.

2.  She has pleaded guilty to such matter and the facts have been read out to her and agreed by her in open court consequent on that plea of guilty.

3.  They are, briefly, that the defendant is married to the victim and had been for some time i.e. since 1996.  Eventually, the defendant came to live with the victim in Hong Kong about five or six years after that.

4.  The incident arose because on 1 November 2008, the defendant and the victim were supposed to go to the Mainland for a banquet for the defendant’s nephew.  As PW1 had to work in Hong Kong, he agreed to meet the defendant later.

5.  He did go to Shenzhen later, at about 6 pm, and for a variety of reason he could not find the defendant’s relatives there and as he did not have a Mainland phone number, he waited there until 8 pm and then returned to Hong Kong.

6.  There was telephone communication between the defendant and PW1, and the defendant was not happy.  Later, the defendant came home, she went into the kitchen and took out a one-foot long sushi knife with a blade of about 20 centimetres in length.  She then chopped PW1 who fended off the blade.  She chopped his left arm once and stabbed his chest twice, before PW1 grabbed the knife off her.

7.  Subsequently, the police arrived and seized the knife.  The defendant was arrested and under caution she admitted having chopped PW1 with the knife.

8.  A subsequent cautioned statement was taken from her in which she said, inter alia, that PW1 had gambling  habits and owed a lot of money which she had helped to repay.  PW1 had promised to attend the banquet but he did not show up.  She only wanted to give him a lesson and did not want him to die.  She had arrived home and had a quarrel with the victim and out of anger she went to the kitchen and picked up the knife.  It was chaotic at the time and she did not recall which parts she had stabbed and he had fended off the knife.  She said she chopped him a few times before he took away the knife and called the police.

9.  The victim was admitted to hospital and in fact spent two days in intensive care.  A variety of injuries were found on him, including stab wounds to the abdomen, the chest and his left forearm.  Further, his right hand showed a v-shaped laceration.  Various operations were performed.  No internal organ injury was found.

10.  Those facts, as I say, have been read to the defendant and agreed by her.

11.  I am told the defendant has a clear record.  Normally, for matters of this nature I would adjourn the matter to get at least a background report on her.  But I am of the view that that would elicit very little indeed to the full and comprehensive mitigation and letters that I have been given in the matter.

12.  Mitigation, as I say, was given to me in which I am told that it is a tragic case.  The defendant could not control her emotions and realised that she committed a serious offence.  I am given her background, a lot of which is put earlier in the Summary of Facts.  It is stressed that the defendant had to work to help pay off the debts of her gambling-addicted husband and she was under a lot of pressure.

13.  The circumstances of the husband not attending the banquet were outlined to me.  I am told the defendant had drunk alcohol and out of anger she did this.  She had failed to control her emotion, she was very remorseful and realised what she did was wrong.  She still loves PW1, the husband.  Her family members are supportive.

14.  Three letters have been furnished to the court.  Although they are in Chinese, the full contents of them have been explained to me by her legal representative.  One is from the husband, the victim.  He asked the court to sentence her leniently as his wife is a good person.  They had been married for many years.  It was out of temper that she took the knife the husband wants to help her and forgives her.  He did not want really to pursue the matter.  It was a family dispute as far as he is concerned.  He repeatedly asked for a lenient sentence and he said he will wait for her until she comes out of prison.

15.  The mother-in-law, Madam Tan, has given a letter, and she says she has been with her for five years and has a good relationship.  It must have been committed out of temper and she is sure the defendant has deep remorse.  She also asks for leniency and to give her a chance of a new life.

16.  The defendant’s sister-in-law has given a letter, which has similar sentiments to the mother-in-law.  She also asks for a lenient sentence.

17.  I was further asked in mitigation to take into account that this was an isolated incident, this loss of temper, and was completely out of character.  The injuries, although serious, are less in that PW1 has fully recovered and now is at work.  In fact, he could not get off work today to be here.

18.  She has a clear record and is a hard worker.

19.  I had asked the prosecution if there is any continuing injury to the victim.  I am informed that there is still a small scar on his abdomen.  There is no further update with respect to his condition other than that contained in the Summary of Facts.  He works in Mainland China and the police could not contact him further.

20.  The offence is a very serious matter.  As I say, arising from a dispute, a knife was produced and I have seen the knife and it is a very formidable weapon indeed.  It is very fortunate that more serious and lasting injuries were not inflicted.  We have to be thankful for that.

21.  Further, it was not a single stab wound but it was at least two or three times; stabbed his chest twice and chopped his left arm once and it necessitated the victim struggling with her and grabbing the knife back which, thankfully, he did.

22.  What is an unusual feature of this case is that apparently the victim has now forgiven his wife.  That is very evident from the letter before the court where he further says that he will wait for her till she comes out of jail.

23.  Public interest demands that an offence of this kind be visited with the imposition of a term of imprisonment.  Although there is no tariff with respect to matters of this nature, the maximum sentence is one of life imprisonment.  But generally, matters of this nature afford a starting point of between 3 and 10 years depending on the facts.

24.  I refer to a case of R v Tsui Mei Ying, which is CACC409/1987, in which the situation was a husband and wife as we have here.  In that case a knife was also used, but the damage there was that a penis had been severed, which of course is different to the facts that I have to deal with here.

25.  After an appeal in that case against the length of sentence, on a plea of guilty the period of imprisonment of 2 years was substituted for the four and a half years, which was originally imposed.  Some assistance is afforded to me from that case.

26.  I am of the view that taking everything into account here as I do, an appropriate starting point in this matter is a sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment.  The defendant will get the full credit with respect to her plea of guilty and mitigation put, and accordingly the defendant will be convicted and sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment.