R. v. KUO CHI LIN

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No. 494
(Criminal)

____________

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

Hon Yang, C.J.:

1. The indictment against Kuo Chi Lin and Liu Lee Shun alleged that on 26 June 1993 at La Cafe 33 Karaoke Lounge, Shop No.33, Basement, Provident Centre, Wharf Road, North Point, together with persons not in custody they murdered Ho Kwok Ho.

2. Kuo was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. He was sentenced to imprisonment for seven years. His application for leave to appeal against sentence was out of time, however he succeeds in obtaining an extension of time.

3. The killing took place as a result of a dispute between two groups of youths. In the early hours of the morning in question, two groups of young people were occupying different tables in the karaoke lounge when a dispute arose principally as a result of one group staring at another. The group to which the applicant belonged then left and returned a little later to attack the group to which the deceased belonged. Knives were used. As a result of the attack, the victim died from chop wounds.

4. In an interview with the police after the killing, and in a cautioned statement, Kuo said that the dispute arose because the deceased had stared at his (Kuo's) group. Kuo's group then left and returned with knives and launched the attack on the victim.

5. In passing sentence, the judge said this:

"This type of moronic resort to violence is typical of the type of gangland thuggery which no civilised society will tolerate, and must be severely punished. This, in my view, is a bad case of manslaughter. The starting point for my sentence is 8 years. I take into account all that has been said on your behalf, including that you are young, that you were always prepared to plead guilty to manslaughter, and all the other matters urged upon me by Mr Mullick."

6. The ground of appeal is that the judge had given insufficient discount for the eight mitigating factors advanced on behalf of the applicant by Mr Mullick before us. It is not disputed that the starting point of eight years was appropriate in all the circumstances. We do not intend for the purpose of this application to discuss in detail the eight mitigating factors enumerated in Mr Mullick's Grounds of Appeal. Suffice it to say that those eight matters were before the sentencing judge who had clearly taken them into consideration.

7. Nothing advanced before us this morning leads us to the view that the judge was wrong in principle or that the sentence is manifestly excessive. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is accordingly refused.