HKSAR v. YEUNG SHING LAM

DCCC 954/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 954 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

Charges

1.  The Defendant faced and pleaded not guilty to 2 counts of Wounding with intent, under s. 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212.  He was convicted of both charges after trial.

Background of the case

2.  The Defendant was the proprietor of Loi Fu Restaurant (“the Restaurant”).  The persons injured, Hon Kan Yuen (PW2) and Tsang Sin Keung (PW3) were the employees of a frozen meat supplier viz. National Key Limited (“the Company”).  They were the victims in this case.  It was undisputed that the Restaurant was indebted to the Company in the sum of $96,739.50 for frozen meat supplied.

3.  For many years, the Company had regularly supplied frozen meat to the Restaurant.

4.  The Defendant being the boss of the Restaurant would personally call up PW1, the proprietor of the Company, and to place order with him on a daily basis.  They knew each other very well and communicated with each other in Hainanese.  PW1 had on numerous occasions delivered the goods personally to the Restaurant himself.

5.  It was undisputed that from September 2009 onwards, the Restaurant started to owe the Company for goods supplied and had accumulated an outstanding amount of over $96,000 up to December 2009.  The Company however still continued to supply goods, but on COD (i.e. cash on delivery) basis to the Restaurant daily. As the Restaurant was unable to settle the outstanding amount, PW1 had eventually in June 2010 instructed a debt collecting company, viz. Great Base Credit Management Ltd. to collect the said outstanding sum.

6.  On 7 July 2010 at about 1 p.m., PW1 received phone calls from the Defendant asking him to go to his Restaurant to collect a cheque for the said outstanding payment at once, otherwise money would be used to settle the rental.  PW1 then asked PW2, his subordinate and a responsible person of the Company and PW3, the Company driver, to go to the Restaurant to collect the cheque.

7.  When PW2 and PW3 went to the Restaurant on the same day in the afternoon to collect the said debt, they were suddenly attacked and wounded by the Defendant with knife.

Injuries of the victims

8.  Injuries suffered by PW2 and PW3 in this incident were reflected on their respective medical reports (Exh. P-5 and P-6).

9.  PW3 had suffered cut wounds over both side of his left wrist and forearm and superficial wound at his right thigh.  An emergency operation was performed, wound exploration with cut tendon repair done.  PW3 was discharged from hospital 5 days later on 12/7/2010.

10.  PW2 had suffered multiple abrasions over bilateral lower limbs and back.  He sustained lacerations over the region of both knees.  He was treated and discharged on the same day.

Sentence guideline

11.  It was mentioned in Archbold HK 2011, at 5-531 and 20-221 that :

“There are no specific tariff or guideline judgments for wounding with intent, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. In Attorney General v Lam Yat Sing (unrep., CAAR 14/1992), the Court of Appeal, per Fuad VP, said ‘everything will depend so heavily on the particular facts of each case’. However, the range of sentences for offences of this type tends to fall between 3 and 12 years’ imprisonment: HKSAR v Tse Pok Lam [2005] HKLRD (Yrbk) 344. Sentences above or below the range of 3 to 12 years may arise ‘if the circumstances are so unusual that they merit sentences above or below the usual bracket’: Secretary for Justice v Hau Ping Chuen [2008] 3 HKC 398.

All offences of wounding with intent are treated seriously because they ‘all contain the ingredient that the offender intended to inflict really serious injury at the time’: HKSAR v Nguyen Van Phuong (unrep., CACC 341/2005).”

“….. the courts have, however, consistently indicated that custodial sentences of some length are the normal means of dealing with such cases …..”

12.  The Defendant is 31 years old.  He was the owner and had been running the business of the Restaurant which was established by his father for 4 years.  He was a hardworking person and has a clear record.

13.  In this case, it was a deliberate and premeditated attack by the Defendant on the two victims who came and collected payment for debts owing to their Company by the Defendant’s Restaurant.

14.  It was an attack where deadly/lethal weapon (knife i.e. Exh P-2) was used by the Defendant against two unarmed victims.  Such attack was totally out of proportion.

15.  The use of a weapon aggravated the offence and would justify a higher starting point.

16.  The multiple choppings on PW2 and PW3 by knife (Exh P-2) were administered to cause severe and extensive injury on them.  In fact, they were seriously injured by the Defendant.

Sentence

17.  Having considered all the circumstances of the case, including the background of this case and that of the Defendant, the nature of the attack, the injuries which the 2 victims had suffered, this court would adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment for each offence.

18.  The mitigating circumstances advanced by the defence lawyer, which however did not and could not justify any departure of the usual judicial sanction for offence of the kind.  As such this Court now imposes an imprisonment term of 3 years on each charge and orders the term to run concurrently with each other.