HKSAR v. LEUNG WAI MAN

DCCC 96/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 96 OF 2017

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant was charged with one count of wounding, contrary to section 19 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212.

2.  The defendant pleaded guilty and admitted he facts.  Upon confirmed with the defendant that he admitted he actually foresaw that his acts might cause physical harm to the victim and yet ignored that risk and went on with his actions, the defendant was convicted accordingly.   

Summary of facts

3.  On 6 September 2016, both the defendant and the victim were on night shift duty at a two levels workstations of a printing warehouse.  The victim was working on the ground level and the defendant was on the upper level.  There was a metal staircase of about 15 steps connecting the two levels.  At around 11:30 pm, a verbal dispute arose between the two of them.

4.  A few minutes later, the victim’s head was hit by an empty barrel from above.  He looked up and saw only the defendant standing on the upper lever.  He felt angry and walked up the stairs intending to argue with the defendant.  When he was about mid-way on the staircase, the defendant picked up a nearby metal stool and threw it towards the victim.  The stool hit the victim’s head and lip area, causing him to faint and bleed. 

5.  As a result, the victim was admitted to hospital for 14 days and suffered:-

1) a 10 cm laceration over his scalp with oozing,

2) a 0.5 cm laceration over his upper lip,

3) a superficial laceration over his right upper chest wall,

4) a fracture in his spine and skull bone,

5) diffuse numbness and weakness over his upper limb, and

6) right epidural haemorrhage in the brain.

6.  The metal stool in question was about 40cm tall with sharp corners.  The defendant confirmed he foresaw the throwing of the barrel and the metal stool might cause physical harm to the victim yet he ignored the risk and went on with his actions.

Mitigation

7.  The defendant aged 36, with stable employment and clear record.  He is single and lives with his parents and younger brother.  He pleaded guilty in the earliest opportunity, he would like to offer $20,000 compensation to the victim to show his sincerity.  This was an incident out of sudden and out of his personal character.

8.  The defendant has worked with his then employer for 17 years, he had good relationship with his colleagues and tried to avoid any conflict with others.  The then employer had laid off a number of redundant manpower two months before the incident but the defendant was not on the list. His superior and colleagues wrote a joint mitigation letter to show their support and urged the court for leniency on his behalf. 

9.  The defendant was dismissed because of the present incident and he found a new employment one month later.  He tendered his resignation to his last employer because of the present case.  The defence urged the court for leniency.

Sentence

10.  There is no sentencing tariff for wounding, all depend on the circumstances of a particular case.

11.  While accepting it was an act out of character and there was no premeditation, that the defendant might have been overwhelmed by the heat of the dispute and acted impulsively, but the verbal dispute did come to an end, the empty barrel thrown by the defendant revived the matter, instead of apologizing, he threw the metal stool at the victim causing him grievous bodily harm.

12.  The prosecution submitted that the victim has undergone surgery for the haemorrhage and sutures for the laceration.  It has been more than 11 months since the incident.  But the victim is still on sick leave and suffering from neck pain and weakness in his arms and legs.  His next appointment with the orthopaedics department is on 29 August 2017, and that with the neurosurgery department is on 10 October 2017. 

13.  Although the metal stool was not a typical lethal weapon as a knife, it was capable to cause lethal injuries depending on the circumstances.  Really serious bodily harm was caused in the present case.  The victim was a printing technician, reasonable strength and mobility of his four limbs were required in his job. 

14.  After considering the circumstances of the case, I am with the view that the appropriate starting point of this case should be one of 18 months’ imprisonment.  The defendant pleaded guilty and was entitled to 1/3 discount.  I allow a further deduction of two months because of his clear record.  But I do not consider there to be any further mitigating factor.

Order

15.  The defendant is sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment.