HKSAR v. WONG WING KIT

DCCC 1393/2024

[2025] HKDC 2146

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1393 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  Defendant (“D”)  pleaded guilty to an offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 17(a)  of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212.

Summary of Facts

2.  Victim and D were cell mates.  They were acquainted since they had been remanded in Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre on 11 February 2023[1].

3.  At around 1330 hours on 25 April 2023 at Dayroom E2A of Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre (“Offence Location”), D suddenly scolded the Victim for failing to pay him the cigarettes money.  D held a plastic cup filled with hot water and poured the same over Victim’s back.  D beat the Victim up.  A Correctional Services Department officer witnessed D throwing punches at Victim.  Victim was separated from D by the officer.  The Victim was eventually admitted to hospital.

4.  The CCTV captured the following:

(a)  D walked past a table and took the cup therefrom;

(b)  8 seconds later, D walked back and had the said cup in his hand and walked towards the Victim;

(c)  D held the said cup in his right hand and placed his right hand behind the Victim’s back;

(d)  D then started punching the Victim repeatedly for around 8 seconds;

(e)  The other people around separated D from the Victim.

Medical Reports

5.  According to the Victim’s 1^st medical report dated 14 August 2023 issued by the doctor of Queen Mary Hospital:

(a)  Victim was attended to the hospital on 25 April 2023 for scald injury by hot water.

(b)  On representation, he was found to be suffering from partial thickness burn, total body surface area 4% over anterior chest, 12% over posterior trunk and 1% over posterior neck.

(c)  He was resuscitated with intravenous fluid administration. His wounds were treated conservatively with dressing and analgesics.

(d)  His wounds healed uneventfully without any complications or functional limitations.

(e)  He was last seen well by the doctor at outpatient clinic on 25 July 2023.

6.  According to the Victim’s 2^nd medical report dated 27 March 2024 issued by another doctor, the Victim was admitted to the hospital on 25 April 2023 for scald injury by hot water and on presentation, he was found to be suffering from second degree burn.

Criminal Record and Background of the Defendant

7.  D had one previous conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs.  He was sentence to Training Centre on 3 June 2013.

Mitigation

8.  D is 27 years old.  He is single with no children.  He is educated to Form 2 level.  He earned around HKD 15,000 per month as a transportation worker.  He lives with his parents.  His mother is 63 years old and works in a packaging factory.  His father is 62 years old and works as a lorry driver.  D has an elder sister who is 31 years old.

9.  In mitigation, by applying the relevant authority[2], Mr Leung submitted that:

(a)  the degree of pre-meditation was very short and was likely to be only a few seconds, as D argued with the Victim about the Victim being unable to pay the cigarette money therefore D responded out of impulse by walking to the water dispenser to pour hot water into a cup.

(b)  D was furious as he felt cheated and provoked by the Victim at the material time.

(c)  D was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

(d)  D acted alone.

(e)  D did not use any weapons other than hot water.

(f)  The Victim only suffered scalding injuries and his vital signs were stable; there was no evidence that the Victim suffered any injuries from being punched by D. The Victim has received no permanent injuries and his wounds have healed uneventfully without complications or functional limitations.

(g)  The attack was over in around 8 seconds as other inmates and prison officers were able to separate them.

10.  It was submitted that the circumstances of this offence are not the most serious of its kind.  There were very few aggravating factors.  Victim has now forgiven D and did not wish to proceed with the charge and did not wish to be a prosecution witness, which is why the Victim is not listed as a prosecution witness.  Therefore the impact of the assault on the Victim has been very little.  Mitigation letters from D and the Victim were submitted. 

11.  Mr Leung asked the court to adopt a starting point of less than 2 years and 6 months.  Mr Leung referred the court to the following cases: HKSAR v Mak Hoi Ching also known as Mak Carmen Ka Man and Mak Ka Man DCCC 1193/2018 and HKSAR v Tsang Sun Ming DCCC 917/2010.  D was remorseful and has pleaded guilty to save the court’s time.  D asked for leniency and promised to control his temper and not to re-offend.

Sentence

12.  The maximum penalty of the offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent is life imprisonment.  There is no sentencing tariff for this offence.  The Court of Appeal reiterated it is a serious offence which warrants a deterrent sentence.  The sentences for this offence are very much case and fact specific and usual range of sentence is 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment.  The major sentencing considerations are (see HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [2013] 6 HKC 225 para 49):

(1)  the extent to which the assault was premeditated;

(2)  the reasons or motivation underlying the assault upon the victim;

(3)  the mental or emotional state of the assailant at the time of the assault;

(4)  whether alcohol or drugs contributed to the actions of the assailant;

(5)  whether the assault was committed by the assailant alone or as part of a group;

(6)  the type of weapons employed;

(7)  the level of force or aggression and the persistence with which the assault was pressed home;

(8)  the injuries caused to the victim; and

(9)  the effect of the assault upon the victim and those close to him or her.

13.  In HKSAR v Ma Tik Lun Dicky CACC 112/2013:  

“41. Furthermore, the aggravating factors for this type of wounding case are: (1)  the defendant was the principal offender; (2)  the assault was committed in company; (3)  the assault was unprovoked; (4)  the assault took place in a public place; (5)  the assault went on after the victim had fallen down; (6)  the assault went on after the victim became unable to defend himself; (7)  the victim suffered serious and lasting injuries; (8)  at the police interview, the defendant misled the police as to the facts, indicating a lack of remorse. See paragraph 13 of the Reasons for Judgment in HKSAR v Chui Kwok Ming, CACC 380/2013 (unreported), 27 March 2014.”

14.  In the present case, the cause of D’s act arouse from an argument with the Victim about payment of the cigarette money.  D then, as put forward by the defence, walked to the water dispenser to pour hot water into a plastic cup.  D poured it over Victim’s back and threw punches on the Victim for almost 8 seconds.  I accepted that it was committed by D alone out of impulse in the heat of argument.  However, D used hot water to pour on Victim’s back and even further attacked Victim with fists. 

15.  Nevertheless, in mitigation, D indicated in his letter that he had received professional counselling service to obtain support and found ways to control his temper.

16.  I have also considered the injuries caused to the Victim and the effect of the assault caused to him.  The Victim was 61 at the time of the offence.  The Victim was scalded with hot water.  The medical reports of the Victim showed he was found to be suffering from second degree burn.  The surface area of the burn covered over anterior chest (4%), over posterior trunk (12%)  and over posterior neck (1%).  The report also showed the Victim has received no lasting injuries and his wounds have healed uneventfully without complications or functional limitations.  The court was told, the Victim had forgiven D.

17.  Taking into account of the nature of the offence, the facts of the case admitted, the background of D, the mitigation submitted by the defence and the relevant authorities, I adopt a starting point of 24 months’ (i.e. 2 years’)  imprisonment.

18.  I am also aware that, as the facts revealed, D attacked a fellow inmate in Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre.  The attack in the Reception Centre is in itself an aggravating factor.  This is accepted by the defence.  In HKSAR v Li Cheng Hong（李承洪）& Ors CACC 408/2010:

“84. Prison is a place to punish convicted people and to allow them the opportunity to reform themselves. It is a place where order and discipline should and must be obeyed and observed. The job of CSD staff will be made very difficult if inmates were not deterred from taking part in attacking one another. The judge was right to say that it was an aggravating factor when the assault took place inside a prison.

85. A defendant who commits serious acts of violence whilst in prison must expect an additional sentence.”

19.  As such, I enhance the sentence by 3 months i.e. 27 months’ imprisonment.  Upon D’s guilty plea, the sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.

20.  There is no other mitigating factor which justifies a further reduction of sentence.

Conclusion

21.  The sentence is 18 months’ imprisonment.