HKSAR v. WONG YAT MING

CACC 283/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 283 OF 2004

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 1250 OF 2003)

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Hon Stock JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

2. On 9 June 2004, the applicant was convicted after trial by Judge Chua in the District Court of an offence of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212.  It had been alleged that on 22 November 2003, he unlawfully and maliciously wounded Hui Chui Yee with intent to do her grievous bodily harm.

3. At the material time, the applicant and the complainant’s elderly mother lived in neighbouring rooms on a housing estate for single persons.  There was a history of bad blood between the applicant and the mother, and on this occasion there had been an altercation between the applicant and the complainant’s brother, who also lived on the estate, as a result of which the applicant suffered some minor injury.  However, the evidence was that after that incident, the applicant returned to his room and fetched a chopper, with which he attacked the complainant, causing her injury.

4. The applicant gave evidence at trial, saying that he did take hold of the chopper which he waved about, but that the chopper had been taken from him.  He did not know how Ms Hui came by her injuries.

5. The applicant is unrepresented before us although Mr Wong Po Wing is instructed by the Director of Legal Aid to assist the court should the need arise and for that we are grateful.  The applicant has addressed us and he refers to the history of problems which he says had previously been visited upon him by the complainant, and he asserts that she has assaulted him resulting in hospitalization and also that the complainant’s younger brother had attacked him so that he, the applicant, armed himself only for defensive purposes.  There was however independent testimony of the applicant’s attack upon the complainant and we see no proper basis upon which to disturb the judge’s findings of fact.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.

6. There is also an application for leave to appeal against sentence.  The trial judge was armed with two psychiatric reports, which stated that the applicant suffered a psychotic mental disorder, namely, a delusional disorder, which required treatment; and recommended his detention for a period of not less than a year under section 45 of the Mental Health Ordinance, Cap. 136.  That is the order that the judge made.  This is in a sense a sad case, but the attack was serious and the applicant clearly has a condition that requires treatment.  We see no basis therefore upon which to upset the order made, and, accordingly, the application for leave to appeal against sentence is also dismissed.