HKSAR v. CHEUNG TSZ LUNG

DCCC 1335/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1335 OF 2011

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Wounding with intent". The defendant and the victim were flatmates.

2.  Mr. LAI Chi Keung rented a public housing unit at Fu Ying House, Fu Cheong Estate, Sham Shui Po.  The defendant and Mr. LAI resided together in the same flat.

3.  In the morning on 25 May 2011, the defendant and Mr. LAI had a dispute at home.  The defendant obtained a chopper from the kitchen and attacked Mr. LAI in the living room.  Mr. LAI tried to fend off the attack but in vein.  He sustained multiple chop wounds on his head and limbs.

4.  Mr. LAI shouted for help and the defendant fled. The Police later retrieved the chopper from a rubbish bin placed inside the refuse collection room located adjacent to Mr. LAI's flat.

5.  Mr. LAI was sent to the hospital for treatment. He sustained multiple chop wounds and right lower chest wall contusion. Details of his injuries are :

(i) a 3 cm laceration over the left eyebrow;

(ii) a 3 cm laceration over the middle forehead;

(iii) 2 lacerations each of 8 cm and 3 cm over the right frontal scalp;

(iv) 2 lacerations each of 8 cm and 3 cm over the left frontal scalp;

(v) a 2 cm volar longitudinal wound at the metacarpophalangeal joint level between the left 3^rd and 4^th fingers;

(vi) a 1 cm volar oblique wound over the left thenar area;

(vii) a 2 cm volar wound over the left hypothenar area;

(viii) a 5 cm volar cut over the left forearm;

(ix) a 5 cm deep cut over the left suprapatellar midline with palpable quadricepts tendon intact;

(x) a 3 cm oblique cut over the right distal medial leg, deep to the tibia; and

(xi) thoracic computer tomography revealed fracture of the posterior segment of the right 9^th rib.

6.  Mr. LAI was admitted to the intensive care unit first.  He was transferred to the surgical ward the following day (26 May), and was discharged from the hospital on 29 May, with neurosurgery and orthopaedic follow-up treatment prescribed.

7.  The defendant was arrested on 8 June 2011.  He remained silent under caution.

8.  The defendant is now 33.  He has 24 criminal records, one of which is related to violence.  In view of the defendant's abnormal aggressive behaviour, I called for 2 psychiatric reports to see if a Hospital Order is required.

9.  Defence counsel Mr. CHEUNG informed me that the defendant has been unemployed since 1999.  He is currently receiving social welfare in the sum of $1,600 per month.  The defendant is married with no children and his wife lives in the mainland.  Mr. CHEUNG explained that on the day in question, the defendant had a dispute over midazolam with Mr. LAI.  Out of anger and acting on impulse, the defendant harmed Mr. LAI.

10.  The psychiatric reports indicated that the defendant has had a serious drug addiction problem (Heroin Dependence and Polysubstance Abuse).  His current mental state is stable with no mood or psychotic symptoms.  No in-patient psychiatric treatment is required.

11.  Whilst the cause of their argument might be related to an illegal subject matter (namely dangerous drugs), the crux of this case is the defendant's brutal attack on Mr. LAI using a lethal weapon.  The defendant inflicted serious injuries on Mr. LAI; he needs to be punished on and only on this basis.  It is most fortunate that Mr. LAI is not suffering from any permanent disability (as confirmed by the Prosecution).  Having considered all aspects of this case, I take the view that a starting point of 5 years' imprisonment[1] is appropriate.  A one-third discount is given for the guilty plea, reducing the sentence to 40 months.  Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further discount.  The sentence I pass is therefore 40 months.