HKSAR v. LAI KAM FUK

DCCC394/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 394 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of attempting to wound his wife, contrary to section 19 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap.212. This happened on 26 March this year.

2.  The facts are very straightforward.  They met in late 1988 and have been married since 2002.  They have been together for a long time.  They now have a 10-odd-year-old son.  In 2007, she came to Hong Kong with their son to live with the defendant.  Unfortunately, things did not go well and their relationship turned sour.  Late last year, she applied for a divorce.  And it seems, according to the antecedents, that early this year the defendant lost his job.

3.  On the evening of the early morning of the 26th, he came home at 2 o’clock in the morning and he was clearly very drunk.  He did pick up a chopper, and the attempt comes about because he did swing it at his wife, but he grabbed his arm and disarmed him without any injury to anybody. She was able to calm him down and call the police.  It is not disputed that he was very drunk at the time.  In fact, he was still drinking when the police came to their premises.  He told the police that he was very upset that his wife wanted a divorce and he had been drinking to vent his emotions.  He told the police he never intended to hurt her and did not hurt her but actually he was so drunk he does not remember what happened.

4.  The facts are serious but it is not the most serious facts for a case of this nature.  If he really had wanted to hurt her, she would not have been able to disarm him so easily without any injury. 

5.  He is in his 50s and he does have one previous conviction, but I am going to treat him as a man of clear record because it is nearly 25 years old and is a gambling offence.  He has no history of violence.

6.  I have heard in mitigation that his elder brother who lived with him until not long ago says that he at most is a social drinker, not a drunk.  He has been on his own since he was a teenager and have clearly tried hard to look after himself and his family.  He has no trouble with the law and he has been working until very recently.

7.  I have two mitigation letters before me, one from a District Councillor who has known him for over 10 years and, clearly, he thinks that this is completely out of character, this incident.  He is the club secretary of the Chai Wan Fishermen’s Recreation Club, and he volunteers his time and his services.  The chairman has written a letter on his behalf, explaining how he volunteers his time to help illiterate fishermen who are retiring apply for housing, apply for welfare and general assistance.  I have heard that his fellow club members donated money to help him engage private representation which would only happen if they were very supportive, genuinely supportive.

8.  Perhaps more importantly is that his wife has forgiven him and she visited him in Lai Chi Kok, in Stanley and has been to court to show her support and her forgiveness.  She still wants a divorce but that does not mean that they cannot have a friendship because they do have a child that both need to look after.

9.  Looking at the defendant’s background, I do not believe he will re‑offend.  He has been in custody for over four months.  I do not see that there is any real need to consider any lengthy term of imprisonment in this case.  This offence does attract a maximum of 3 years’ imprisonment.  I intend to use a starting point for this offence of 12 months. He has pleaded guilty.  He is entitled to a discount of one-third.  That is a discount of 4 months.

10.  I am going to give him a discount of 1 extra month because his mitigation is good and the victim has forgiven him.  That is very important.  For this offence, he will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 7 months’ imprisonment.