HKSAR v. TSOI KA CHUN

 DCCC1369/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1369 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleaded not guilty to a charge of wounding with intent. It was alleged that on 14 October 2009 at a public light bus terminus outside the Richland Garden Shopping Centre in Ngau Tau Kok, he unlawfully and maliciously wounded Lau Chiu-hung who gave evidence as PW1 in this trial with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. I convicted the defendant after trial.

2.  PW1 has been attached to the Civil Engineering and Development Department and was responsible for slope maintenance work at a site located at Keung Shan, Lantau, which I will refer to as the “Site”, since January 2009. One of PW1’s duties was to monitor the defendant’s work. The defendant was the foreman for a subcontracting company which was carrying out work on the site. There was a history of ill will between the defendant and the various contractors who were working on the site.

3.  On Wednesday, 14 October 2009, PW1 left the site and arrived at a public light bus station located outside Richland Garden Shopping Centre at about 5.20 pm. Suddenly, a male wearing a baseball cap and a surgical mask dashed out and assaulted him from behind with a blue coloured crowbar. PW1 was attacked on different parts of his body. A security guard nearby saw the incident and shouted out for the defendant to stop and it was at that stage the defendant fled. The security guard approached the victim and told him to lie on the ground, and the victim told the court that he later lost consciousness and came round in the ambulance.

4.  The victim was sent to hospital and at about 6 o’clock was found to have suffered the following injuries: tenderness in his left shoulder, his left little finger and right forearm, abrasion of the right forearm, right leg and back, a deep laceration to his right ear, a fracture of the metacarpal bone of the left little finger and an open fracture of the right ulnar shaft.

5.  On the same day, the victim was admitted to the orthopaedic ward for further treatment. He underwent an operation on 15 October for the fractures on his left hand and his right forearm. He was discharged from hospital on 28 October 2009. The victim has been on sick leave since the day of the attack. He requires follow-up medical attention in different specialties, including orthopaedics, psychiatry, ophthalmology, ear, nose and throat, and he is also undergoing physiotherapy. He has to go back into hospital at the end of this month for further treatment to his hands.

6.  Now, the evidence in this case showed that the defendant bought a blue crowbar at about 4 pm on the day of the attack. I am satisfied that the defendant lied to the police about when he bought that crowbar and where he was at the time of the attack.

7.  Now, the defendant is 32 years of age and he has a clear record. He was educated to Form 2 standard and he worked in the construction company. In fact, the construction company he has worked for is owned by his father. He is a married man. He has two children aged 11 and 6. He is described as being a supportive father. His wife has been in court throughout these proceedings.

8.  Obviously, this is a very serious offence. This attack was pre-meditated and it was callous; it was calculating and it was a cowardly attack. The defendant sneaked up from behind the victim. He tried to conceal his identity. The attack only stopped when the security guard shouted out and started to approach where the attack was taking place when the defendant ran off.

Mitigation

9.  It has been urged upon me that this was not a triad‑related offence and I accept that, and nor was it a gang attack. All offences contrary to section 17 of the Cap. 212 are serious because they all contain the ingredient that the offender intended to inflict really serious harm at the time. The range of sentences for this type of offence seem to vary from 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment although everything depends on the facts of the particular case.

10.  The defendant is 32 years of age. His victim is 49. The attack has had serious consequences for the welfare and health of the victim. Looking at all the circumstances of this case, I take a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment. No mitigating factors will urge me to reduce that starting point. The sentence I therefore impose is 5 years imprisonment.