|
HCMA 61/2021
[2021] HKCFI 2283
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 61 OF 2021
(ON APPEAL FROM WKCC 3300 OF 2020)
________________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
HKSAR |
Respondent |
and |
| |
SINGH PREM |
Appellant |
________________
Before: Hon Campbell-Moffat J in Court
Date of Hearing: 3 August 2021
Date of Judgment: 9 August 2021
________________________
JUDGMENT
________________________
Introduction
1. On 6 January 2021, the defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of common assault contrary to s40 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212. On the same day, the defendant was sentenced to 16 days’ imprisonment by Deputy Magistrate Hui Shiu‑Keung, Peter.
2. By reason of his Notice of Appeal dated 11 January 2021, the appellant appeals against sentence only. He maintains that the sentence was too severe. He did not attend the hearing and the appeal was therefore dealt with on the papers.
Facts of the Case
3. The offence occurred on 29 August 2020 within the MTR at Tung Chung. The victim, Ms Lung was shopping. Ms Lung knew of the appellant but they were not friends nor was there any enmity between them. Without warning, at 11.00 am, the appellant approached her and threw chilli powder into her eyes. A medical examination confirmed tenderness and redness to her eyes with congested conjunctiva. She not unsurprisingly complained of pain. The appellant remained silent upon arrest and caution.
Reasons for Sentence
4. In sentencing the appellant the magistrate noted this was an unprovoked attack but that the injuries were not serious in nature. However, the appellant had a substantial record for assault dating between 1994 and 2007 including a matter of wounding. He had previously received between 2 weeks and 3 months’ imprisonment although his last offending for matters of violence was in 2007. Given his previous record and the potential for much greater harm than was actually incurred by the victim, the magistrate found a sentence of imprisonment was necessary and adopted a starting point of 20 days and then gave an appropriate discount for the late entry of plea.
Grounds of Appeal against Sentence
5. There were no Perfect Grounds of Appeal. The appellant relied upon the grounds stated in his Notice of Appeal and as he did not attend these could not be explained or supplemented in any way.
Conclusion
6. The magistrate correctly adopted the appropriate tariff for common assault and for the lateness of plea. There were no other mitigating factors put forward which could reduce the sentence further. He properly took into consideration the previous offending of the appellant and his violent predisposition. It was entirely appropriate to sentence him to a short term of imprisonment. A lengthier term may very well have been justified given his previous offending and that this was an entirely unprovoked attack upon a victim who was, in essence, a stranger in a public place. The sentence was entirely proper.
7. This appeal is without merit and is dismissed.
|
(A P Campbell‑Moffat)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court |
Mr Steven Liu, SPP(Ag.), of the Department of Justice, for the respondent
The appellant appeared in person.
|