THE QUEEN v. HO KIN SANG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1987, No. 7
(Criminal)

___________

BETWEEN

___________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Barnes, J.:

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against the sentence of imprisonment of ten years imposed on the applicant in respect of a conviction for the offence of throwing corrosive fluid at a person. The person at whom the fluid was thrown was a young woman who, up until about a month before the incident, had been cohabiting with a man named Lee.

2. On the 15th November of 1983, she was at premises where she acted as a prostitute waiting for patronage when a man came up to her and threw hydrochloric acid in her face. As a result she suffered, in the words of the Trial Judge, “rather horrific injuries”.

3. As a result of the attack she eventually suffered 100% loss of sight in her left eye and 50% impairment of the right. The attack was an act of revenge against the young woman for separating from Lee.  Lee was a person whom the applicant regarded as his “godfather”. The applicant did not throw the acid at the young woman but he was charged with and convicted of the offence on the basis that he participated in the plan to seek revenge upon her in that way. Again, borrowing the words of the learned Trial Judge, “it is difficult to conceive a more vicious method of attack”.

4. The applicant planned this attack with two other persons.  He played a significant role in carrying out the plan because he bought the acid, he arranged for the actual thrower of it to do the evil deed and he handed him the acid so that he could do it.

5. Before the applicant's trial his two confederates had already been convicted and each was sentenced to imprisonment for ten years.  The learned Trial Judge was aware of the sentences which had been passed upon them. The applicant's counsel could find practicably nothing to say by way of mitigation and we can see nothing by way of mitigation. It can be said that the applicant may have been lucky to receive a sentence of 10 years.  We find no merit whatsoever in his application and it is refused.