COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212.
In the morning of 21 June 2021, the defendant had an argument with the victim over money and remarry issue. The victim was the defendant’s ex-wife and that they divorced in 2020. Despite their divorce, they continued to live in the same public housing unit.
The so-called remarry issue essentially concerned a purported remarriage and separation thereafter and the possibility of the victim getting a separate public housing unit.
After the argument, the victim returned to her bedroom and fell asleep. While she was sleeping, she was attacked by the defendant with both a knife and a chopper. The defendant shouted “I’m going to chop you to death” and attacked the victim on her face, neck and hand. The victim struggled and managed to escape. She then ran out of the building to a nearby housing estate.
The defendant chased after the victim. Eventually, the victim was saved by a security guard who stopped the defendant from entering the building of the nearby housing estate. The victim was rushed to hospital for emergency operation.
Injuries sustained by the victim are detailed in paragraph 11 to 13 of the Summary of Facts which I shall not repeat. She was discharged two days later from hospital. Follow up treatments were arranged and sick leave was granted from 21 June to 30 July 2021.
During the incident, the defendant sustained some minor injuries.
The defendant is now 69, educated up to secondary school level in mainland China. Prior to his arrest, he worked as a security guard, he has no criminal record.
There is no sentencing guideline for the offence of wounding with intent. Sentences imposed in the past are much case and fact specific. The Court of Appeal, however, in the case of HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [2013] 6 HKC 225 provided a non-exhaustive list of factors to which a court have regard to in determining the gravity of the offence. Those factors include:
(1) the extent to which the attack was premeditated;
(2) the reason underlying the attack;
(3) the mental or emotional state of the attacker;
(4) the type of weapons used;
(5) the level of force or aggression and the persistence with which the attack was pressed on; and
(6) the injuries caused to the victim.
In the present case, the attack was not premeditated in our normal criminal sense. The acrimony between the defendant and the victim however had been lasting for some time. The reason for the attack was the idea that the two should remarry so as to beat the public housing policy to obtain another public housing unit. That idea had generated much resentment to the defendant. All I can say is that both the request and the resentment are perfectly understandable in a crowded city of Hong Kong and that nothing sinister or evil was involved in the present case.
As to the weapons used, the defendant used a knife as well as a chopper, both are lethal weapons. The level of force or aggression and the persistence was relentless. The defendant had chased the victim from their apartment all the way to another housing estate, not till the security guard refused to open the gate.
Insofar as the injuries are concerned, I accept that the injuries caused to the victim are not very serious in the sense that they do not cause any permanent disabilities. The injuries, however, cause visible scars on the head and neck of the victim. I will place the present attack in the serious category as reflected in the charge where the intention was doing grievous bodily harm to the victim.
Mitigation letters from the defendant’s sister, cousin and daughter were produced on the last hearing, essentially, they ask the court for leniency. They are of the view that the present incident was totally out of the defendant’s character. Such incident would unlikely reoccur in the future. The daughter also praises her father in looking after her and showing love to her in the past.
The present case bears a great deal of resemblance to the case of HKSAR v Lam Kwong Chau, HCCC 197/2017, which was also one involving domestic violence between husband and wife. In the present case, the attack on the victim could not be described as not particularly vicious and could have resulted in far more serious injuries to the victim, if not her death.
The attack in the present case was a sustained one and far more persistent. This factor, in my view, is a much more serious aggravating factor. Given the similarities of the two cases, a starting point of 8 years and 6 months will also be adopted.
The defendant’s plea to wounding with intent was tendered at the Magistracy level but was rejected by the Department of Justice at the time. As such, a full one-third discount will be given. Apart from his plea, there is nothing to reduce the sentence further.
For the sole offence of wounding with intent the defendant stands convicted, he is therefore sentenced to 5 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.