HKSAR v. KHAN ILTAF

DCCC 413/2025

[2026] HKDC 214

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 413 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

Introduction

1.  The defendant appeared before me facing one count of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212.  He pleaded guilty to the charge and admitted the facts presented by the Prosecution.

2.   The Facts Admitted

3.  The defendant lived with KHAN Dildar (PW1), his father, at the material time.

4.  At about 1:45 pm on 3 December 2024, after PW1 refused the defendant’s request to borrow money, the defendant lost his temper, pushed PW1 into the kitchen, and attacked his head with a knife and a fork, causing bleeding.  The two later moved to the living room, where the defendant put down the knife and fork, picked up a foldable desk, and struck PW1’s head with it.  The assault lasted for about 10 minutes, after which the defendant left the flat.

5.  At about 5:16 pm the same afternoon, PC24576 (PW2) intercepted the defendant in Sham Shui Po and observed bloodstains on his clothing.  The defendant immediately admitted that he had assaulted his father.  Under caution and in a subsequent video‑recorded interview, the defendant admitted that he became angry after PW1 refused to lend him money and used a knife, a fork, scissors, and later a foldable table to attack PW1.

6.  PW1 was examined at Princess Margaret Hospital and was found to have multiple scalp lacerations, a nose bridge wound, a left ear laceration, bruising to several limbs, rib tenderness, and bleeding in the left external auditory canal.  One deep scalp laceration required six stitches.

Background and Criminal Record

7.  The defendant is 35 years old, born in Hong Kong, and educated up to Form 5.  Although unemployed at the time of the offence, he has previously held a range of jobs, including salesman, kindergarten teacher, bartender, delivery worker, and waiter.  He is married but has been separated from his wife since 2022, though they remain on good terms.

8.  The defendant has two previous criminal convictions.  One of them, imposed on 29 March 2023, was a sentence of 14 days’ imprisonment suspended for 12 months for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.  That offence was of a similar nature and likewise involved violence.  It cannot be ignored that the present offence was committed less than a year after the expiry of that suspended sentence, and again involved violence.

9.  The defendant was also placed on a good behaviour bond of $2,000 for 24 months on 16 October 2024, with a specific condition that he was not to commit any violence‑related offences.  The Court is informed that the victim in that case was likewise the defendant’s father.  The present offence was therefore committed in breach of that good behaviour order, and again involved violence.

Mitigation

10.  Mr. Corlett, counsel representing the defendant, has provided me with a written submission for mitigation.  It was said that the defendant has experienced a prolonged history of alcohol and drug misuse.  It was submitted that at the time of the offence the defendant was intoxicated and had consumed “space oil” through an electronic cigarette, which may have contributed to his disinhibited and violent behaviour following the disagreement with his father.  Mr. Corlett confirmed to the Court that, notwithstanding the defendant’s consumption of alcohol and “space oil”, it was not suggested that he was unaware of what he was doing or that he lacked the requisite intent.

11.  It was said that the defendant has previous convictions, but none approaching the seriousness of the present offence.  The defendant enjoys strong and consistent family support.  His parents, brother, and sisters visit him weekly in custody.  Letters of support have been submitted, showing that the defendant comes from a close and loving family, is regarded as a kind and much‑loved member, and that his father, the victim in this case, has forgiven him.  The family expresses a clear intention to support him upon release, including providing accommodation with his brother.

12.  Mr. Corlett submitted that the defendant’s early guilty plea, his remorse, and the insight he has shown into the need to abstain from alcohol and drugs in future provide some assurance that he has taken responsibility for his actions and will be released into an environment conducive to rehabilitation.

13.  It was submitted that there are a number of salient features, namely that the attack was unprovoked, involved the use of weapons, entailed repeated blows to the head, and caused multiple injuries, one of which required six stitches.  While acknowledging that sentencing for wounding with intent is highly fact‑specific, Mr. Corlett referred me to Secretary for Justice v Chau Wan-fun, [2006] 3 HKLRD 577 and Secretary for Justice v Yu Yat-sang [2011] 1 HKC 155 as illustrations of sentences imposed in cases involving the use of weapons and blows to the head or upper body.  On that basis, Mr. Corlett suggested that a starting point in the region of six years may be appropriate, subject to the usual discount for the early guilty plea. The defendant has been in custody since 10 December 2024.

Sentencing Considerations

14.  Wounding with intent is a particularly serious offence, carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. As noted in Secretary for Justice v. Hau Ping Chuen (侯炳全) [2008] 4 HKLRD 673, sentences for this offence generally fall within a broad range of 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment, depending on the circumstances.

15.  In HKSAR v. Ma Tik Lun Dicky (馬迪倫) [2015] 1 HKLRD 380, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed, citing HKSAR v. Chan Chun Tat (陳駿達) [2013] 6 HKC 225 that deterrent sentences are required.  Relevant considerations include the degree of premeditation, motive, mental or emotional state, intoxication, whether the attack was individual or group‑based, the nature of the weapon, the degree of force used, the injuries sustained, and the impact on the victim and family.

16.  In HKSAR v. Chui Kwok Ming (徐國明)CACC 380/2013, the Court of Appeal observed that aggravating features in cases of serious violence may include situations where the offender was the principal instigator, where others acted in concert, where the assault was not triggered by provocation, or where the offence was committed in a public place.  The gravity of the conduct is further heightened where the assault continued after the victim had fallen or lost the ability to defend himself, or where the victim sustained serious or permanent injury.

17.  The Court of Appeal has emphasized that there is no rigid tariff for wounding cases, given the wide variation in factual circumstances: see Secretary for Justice v. Hung Kar Chun (熊家駿), [2011] 1 HKLRD 1083.

18.  Applying these principles, I consider the present case to be a serious example of wounding with intent.

19.  I find that the defendant launched a sustained assault on his father, a vulnerable family member living under the same roof.  The attack lasted about 10 minutes and involved multiple weapons, including a knife, a fork, and later a foldable desk.  The use of sharp implements directed at the head carried an obvious and substantial risk of grave injury.

20.  The injuries, while not life‑threatening, were multiple and significant. They included several scalp lacerations, an ear laceration, bruising to the limbs, rib tenderness, and bleeding in the external auditory canal.  One wound required six stitches. The harm was plainly not trivial.

21.  The assault was not provoked in any meaningful sense.  PW1 merely refused to lend the defendant money.  The defendant’s reaction was wholly disproportionate.

22.  It cannot be ignored that the offence occurred within the family home and was directed at the defendant’s father.  This is a serious aggravating factor.  Where violence occurs in a domestic setting, culpability is heightened.  In Chan Chun Tat, the Court stressed that domestic violence requires sentences reflecting condemnation.  This accords with the remarks of P. Chan CJHC (as he then was) in Secretary for Justice v. Lui Jiu (呂瑤) [1995-2000] HKCLRT 319, where His Lordship observed that although emotional turmoil in family disputes may attract sympathy, the consequences of such violence are no different from any other wounding case.  Leniency on the basis of the domestic context would send the wrong message and risk encouraging domestic violence.

23.  Mr. Corlett informs the Court that the defendant’s family members are present today to demonstrate their support.  I accept that the defendant’s father has forgiven him and continues to support him, but such forgiveness carries limited weight.  As the Court of Appeal noted in Hung Kar Chun, while the victim’s personal feelings may be acknowledged, the Court must also consider the public interest, the seriousness of the violence, and the need for deterrence.

24.  While Mr. Corlett refers me to Chau Wan‑fun and Yu Yat‑sang, both cases involved significantly more serious circumstances, including permanent or very grave injuries, the use of highly dangerous weapons, and in one case multiple victims.  Those authorities therefore do not support a starting point as high as six years in the present case, where the injuries, though serious, were not life‑threatening or permanent, and the incident arose spontaneously rather than from any form of premeditated or retaliatory violence.

25.  Taking all the circumstances of the offence into account, I consider that a proper starting point is 42 months’ imprisonment.  After deducting the customary one‑third discount for the guilty plea, the sentence is 28 months’ imprisonment.

26.  Further, I see no reason not to enforce the previous good behaviour order.  Accordingly, I order the defendant to forfeit the sum of $2,000 under that order.  I remind the defendant that any further resort to violence, or continued abuse of drugs or alcohol, will attract increasingly severe consequences, and he should take this opportunity to reform his conduct.