R. v. HUI KING WAH

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No 74
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Bokhary, J.A.:

1. On December 12 last year, before HH Judge Bailey in the District Court, this appellant, a man of previous good character now aged 40, was convicted of wounding a woman, Madam Wong Yim-tong, with intent to cause her grievous bodily harm, and was sentenced to two years' and three months' imprisonment.

2. He now seeks leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

3. We have heard him on both.

4. The charge arose out of an incident on December 1 the year before last.

5. Bad blood had existed for some time between the applicant on the one side and Madam Wong and her husband on the other. Who was at fault on the earlier occasions is not a matter on which the judge made any finding.

6. What the judge did find proved beyond reasonable doubt is that on this occasion the applicant repeatedly stabbed Madam Wong with a screwdriver-like object putting her in hospital for five days with multiple stab wounds and other injuries.

7. The evidence on which the judge so found included a confession statement by the applicant to the police which the judge was sure had been made voluntarily and was true, and in which the applicant confesses to a "revenge" attack in the course of which he stabbed Madam Wong several times. The evidence also included the testimony of Madam Wong and her husband whom the judge concluded were honest and reliable after approaching their testimony with the caution necessitated by their "troubled history" with the applicant.

8. In seeking leave to appeal against conviction, the applicant has in effect reiterated points which the trial judge had considered and rejected after reviewing all the evidence at first-hand.

9. We have to emphasise that the judge performed his task at first-hand: since he had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, while we are confined to dealing with the case on paper.

10. In all the circumstances, we do not find any justification for overturning the judge's view of the facts. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.

11. As to sentence, the judge took a starting point of three years: which was justified by the serious nature of the attack. He gave a generous discount for the applicant's previous good character. And that element apart, there really was no other mitigation.

12. Whatever may have taken place between the applicant on the one hand and Madam Wong and her husband on the other in the past, the attack which he launched upon her cannot begin to be justified or excused to any degree.

13. The applicant, who addressed us with ability and courtesy pointed out the difficult family circumstances which now confront him and his loved ones. All of that is but one part of the overall tragedy that a trivial incident - it seems to have had something to do with whether a bus window should have been opened or closed - should have escalated and escalated until it landed a woman in hospital and a man in prison.

14. We have considerable sympathy for the applicant's family. But our duty to the public compels us, in our view, to uphold what the judge did in response to a very violent armed attack upon a woman which resulted in the woman being hospitalised.

15. In such circumstances, the application for leave to appeal against sentence is also dismissed.