HKSAR v. YU WAI CHIU

CACC 300/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 300 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 95/2000)

__________________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Hon Mayo VP (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant pleaded guilty to one count of throwing corrosive fluid with intent contrary to s 29(c) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212 in the High Court before Deputy Judge Tong (as he then was). The Judge adopted a starting point of 18 years imprisonment and after giving the applicant the usual 1/3 discount for his plea sentenced him to 12 years imprisonment. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against this sentence.

2. It was a truly terrible case. The victim is a 44 year-old lady who was living in the Kwai Shing West Estate at the address where the offence took place with her two sons. She had not been in the best of health. She had recently undergone an operation in relation to the rheumatic heart disease she suffered from.

3. On the morning of 13 October 1999 a man came to the door inquiring whether she was "Aunt Fong" or "Aunt Sim". She did not know what he was talking about and denied being this person. She saw that he was holding a red plastic mug which contained some liquid and was alarmed. The man however left. In the afternoon when she was sitting outside the flat talking with one of her friends the same man returned and splashed liquid from the container over her. She felt extreme pain and cried out for assistance. It transpired that the man in question was the applicant and the liquid was a concentrated form of sulphuric acid. The victim suffered grievous injury.

4. So far as these injuries are concerned we can do no better than to adopt what the Judge had to say:

"The acid involved was a strong sulphuric acid with very high concentration. The victim received a third degree burn on her face, neck, chest wall, and four limbs. The injuries covered 18 per cent of the total body surface area. The pictures, tendered together with the agreed facts, showed a horific scene of disfigurement on the victim's body. In fact, the victim had to go through various kinds of treatment and skin graft procedures. She is also suffering from contractures on her left ear lobe, neck and left shoulder. Apparently she still has to go through many more treatments and therapy."

5. This description of her injuries is fully borne out by the graphic photographs which we have seen. It is not an exaggeration to state that the victim's life has been blighted. She had to undergo further operations and obviously suffered extreme plain. It goes without saying that she will be disfigured for life.

6. Besides the complaint that the starting point was too high a complaint is also made that the Judge took the applicant's criminal record into account. At the time of the offence the applicant had just recently been released from a training centre and was subject to supervision.

7. It is pertinent to observe that the applicant has a bad record. This includes two convictions for claiming to be a member of a triad society. This is of some relevance as the background circumstances of the present case indicate that the applicant committed the offence at the behest of others and that his reward for doing so was that he would continue to receive dangerous drugs to feed his addiction.

8. This no doubt was one of the factors which was weighed by the Judge when he made reference to the danger the applicant posed to the community.

9. Perhaps one of the most horrifying aspects of this case was the willingness of the applicant to inflict these terrible injuries upon a total stranger simply so that he would receive a reward.

10. The Judge was referred to a number of cases where corrosive fluids had been thrown on victims. In most cases what was involved were cases of passion which although in no way justified the offences at least were not committed in the cold blooded manner of the applicant.

11. The starting point was indeed high. The question though is whether in the extreme circumstances of the present case it can be considered as manifestly excessive. One of the factors which needs to be borne in mind is that the maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment. This must be one of the most serious types of offence which can be encountered. Having regard to all the circumstances and in particular the grievous nature of the injuries to the victim we do not think that the sentence imposed here was either wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. The application is accordingly dismissed.