HKSAR v.CHAN KING YUN JAMES

DCCC238/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 238 of 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  This is a tragic case. The victim’s life is now ruined. Effectively he has no quality of life at all. He is almost vegetative all because of a flash of anger and uncontrolled impulse by the defendant who lashed out and punched him.

2.  The defendant is a well-built man and must have known he would cause injury to the victim if he punched him full in the face. I do not intend to repeat the facts of the case.  I set them out in full in my verdict.  I accept that this was not a premeditated attack.  I accept the defendant did not use any weapon and it was at most two blows to the victim, the first being an elbow to the victim who was on his back at the time but to turn to face him during a game and then punch him in the face is an act of aggression and violence.  It was so unnecessary and therein lies the tragedy of this case and my sympathy does go out to the victim and his family. 

I have heard mitigation. The defendant is not a man of clear record. However, he was convicted of unrelated offences in 1980 when he was but 17 years old. They are not offences related to violence. There is no evidence the defendant is a violent man or has a history of violence and quite rightly defence counsel can describe this incident as being out of character. I have heard the defendant’s background and his three teenage children have written to the court to say that he is a good and responsible

father who is remorseful. They ask the court for leniency.

3.  Mr Yeung, defence counsel, has tried his best in mitigation to ask for leniency.  He reiterates again that there was no weapon and it was not premeditated.  He describes the defendant’s actions as impulsive and out of irritation at the victim.  I have no doubt the defendant did not wish this to be the outcome of his outburst.  However, I cannot lose sight of the consequences of the defendant’s actions.  They are very serious. 

4.  I do not find as submitted a Community Service Order appropriate.  There are no guidelines I refer myself to.  Sentencing will depend heavily on the particular facts of each and every case.  I convicted the defendant of an alternative charge, a section 19 offence, for which the maximum sentence is 3 years’ imprisonment. 

5.  Under the circumstances of this case and in view of the injuries suffered and the permanent disabilities of the victim, I find a term if imprisonment appropriate.  I will take a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment.  Defendant is not entitled to any significant discount.  He is convicted after trial.  However, I will take into account that there is a conviction for an alternative offence plus I will deduct a portion of this sentence to reflect the fact it was not premeditated as well as the fact there were two blows to the victim and no weapon involved.  For these reasons I will deduct from this 2 year starting point 4 months. 

I sentence this defendant to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment.