HKSAR v. TANG CHUNG KIT

DCCC 252/2018

[2018] HKDC 899

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 252 OF 2018

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of “wounding with intent”, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212.

Facts

2.  At around 10 am on 19 July 2017, Mr Li was playing amusement games at the game centre particularized in the charge.  After A few minutes, the defendant arrived at the game centre with an unknown object inside the right back pocket of his shorts and walked towards Mr Li.  He then patted on Mr Li’s shoulder and they talked and a heated argument arose.

3.  During the argument, the defendant took out the unknown object and repeatedly stabbed Mr Li’s abdomen and left underarm area near the rib cage.  Mr Li tried to resist and escape but stumbled onto another game machine. Whilst leaning on the other game machine, the defendant continued to stab Mr Li at his left arm, abdomen and left underarm area.  Mr Li fought back and the defendant eventually left.

4.  Mr Li identified the defendant was nicknamed “Kit Jai”.  On 4 January 2018, the defendant was arrested. Under caution, he remained silent. 

5.  On 18 January 2018, Mr Li positively identified the defendant in an ID parade.

6.  As a result of the attack, Mr Li was found to have suffered from multiple chop wounds over abdomen, chest wall, bilateral arm and right thigh as detailed in the Summary of Facts.    

Mitigation

7.  The defendant is aged 35, single with a son.  He has 7 previous conviction records, one of them relates to robbery.  Prior to the arrest, the defendant lived with his son and mother.  He worked as a casual delivery worker earning about HK$8,000 per month.  He was the sole breadwinner of the family.

8.  He came to know the victim Mr Li in amusement game centre.  Mr Li borrowed HK$2,000 from the defendant and failed to repay the defendant as promised.  As a result, the defendant was angry about that and eventually went to attack Mr Li. 

9.  In mitigation, it was conceded that the attack was premediated and that a knife was used in the attack.  It was submitted that the defendant was remorseful for what he had done and asked for a lenient sentence so that he could take care of his son and his mother as soon as possible.

Sentence

10.  Wounding with intent is a very serious offence.  There is no sentencing guideline in respect of this offence.  The range of sentence for this offence is wide, usually from 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment.

11.  In HKSAR v Ma Tik Lun Dicky [2015] 1 HKLRD 380, the Court of   Appeal referred to HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [2013] 6 HKC 255 and reiterated that “wounding with intent” is a serious offence warranting a deterrent sentence and set out the major sentencing considerations:

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

(2) the motivation underlying the assault;

(3) the mental or emotional state of the assailant;

(4) whether the assailant was acting under the influence of alcohol or drugs;

(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 used;

(8) the injuries caused to the victim;

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

12.  In that case, the Court of Appeal also set out the aggravating factors for wounding case:

(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.

13.  I have considered the defendant’s criminal conviction records and will not regard him as a repeated offender of offences involving violence.

14.  I have viewed photographs depicting Mr Li’s injuries and do not consider that they were very serious injuries. According to the prosecution, Mr Li has recovered fully and there is no evidence of any permanent disability. 

15.  In the present case, the defendant had acted alone.  The attack was premediated with the use of a knife.  The assault was a violent one in that the defendant repeatedly stabbed Mr Li on his abdomen and near the rib cage. When Mr Li stumbled on another game machine and leant there, the defendant continued to stab Mr Li. The attack was carried out in a public place. In view of all the circumstances, I find the seriousness of the present case not at the lower end but near the lower end of the spectrum.  I consider the appropriate starting point to be 3.5 years’ imprisonment.  Given the defendant’s guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 28 months’ imprisonment.  Apart from that, there is no other mitigating factor justifying further reduction of sentence. The defendant is therefore sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment.