R. v. MA FAT MAN

IN THE HIGH COURT

1995, No. 167
Magistracy Appeal

____________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Litton, V.-P.:

1. This is an appeal against sentence. The appellant is aged 38 years and was convicted by Mr Edwards in the North Kowloon Magistracy on 19 January 1995 on one charge of unlawful wounding, contrary to section 19 of the Offences Against the Persons Ordinance. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment.

2. The offence occurred on 19 October 1994 outside the Yuen Fat Restaurant in Pratas Street, Kowloon. The victim of the unlawful wounding was one Cheng Chun-lam (PW1) who was working at a cooked food stall which he owned at Pratas Street and the appellant had, on the day in question, gone there to borrow money from PW1. Afterwards he stayed around the place and caused a nuisance to the customers. When he was asked to leave he got annoyed, got hold of bottles of beer, the necks of which he broke, and with these attacked PW1. The victim suffered laceration wounds at the back of his waist and his left forearm. The appellant was drunk at the time.

3. He has three previous convictions, one relating to violence. The magistrate in sentencing the appellant to eight months' imprisonment took into account two psychiatric reports to the effect that the appellant was suffering from alcohol dependence syndrome and that his impulse control and judgment were likely to have been affected at the time of the attack.

4. On the face of things the sentence of eight months' imprisonment is not manifestly excessive. The only matter which has caused me slight concern on this appeal is this. The magistrate did not indicate the starting point from which he reached the sentence of eight months. It would have been helpful if he had done so. However, this cannot be said to be an error in his approach and there are no errors in principle by which he reached this result. The magistrate took into account all the relevant factors and I can see no ground for interference with this sentence. The appeal is dismissed.