HKSAR v. WONG KAM CHAN AND ANOTHER

DCCC631/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 631 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Both defendants were convicted of the offence of wounding with intent after trial. I have just delivered the reasons for verdict detailing the facts of the case.

2.  In gist, after a few phone calls, the victim was lured to meet D1, who was wearing a cap and a mask, on the morning of 9 April 2010.  When the victim and D1 reached the rest area near Sycamore Street, D2 jumped out and used a rod to hit the victim.  At the same time D1 also hit the victim with a rod from behind.  The victim suffered injuries.  Both defendants were intercepted and arrested in the vicinity.  They made certain verbals at the scene. 

Mitigation

3.  There was no mitigation put forward by D1. 

4.  As regards D2, he is aged, 55 years old, and studied till Primary 3 level.  It was submitted that the victim’s injuries were not the worst kind, and he has no permanent injury.  The victim was discharged on the same day.

Sentence

5.  D1 is aged 47 years old and has a job in a plastic recycling plant in Fanling.  He had nine previous convictions, four of which involved violence.  D2 had 30 previous convictions.  There is no sentencing tariff for this offence as the sentence is very much case specific. In addition to HKSAR v Lo Man Kam, CACC212/2001 and HKSAR v Galanza A.R., CACC304/2003, I have also considered HKSAR v Law Kwok Fai, CACC204/2003.  In the latter case the assailant acted alone and used a torch to hit three victims.  One of the victims suffered a 4-cm deep laceration on his scalp and a 3-cm long abrasion over his right eye, both of which required suturing.  He had no bone fracture.  He was treated and discharged from hospital the same day.  For this charge that appellant received a term of 4 years. 

6.  Given the nature of the offence, I accept that injuries sustained by the victim is one of the important factors to consider for sentencing purpose.  However, the court also needs to consider all other circumstances of the case.  D1 was wearing a cap and a mask to conceal his identity.  This was a premeditated plot to ambush the victim who was lured to go to a local café in an area he was not familiar with.  The phone on D1 showed a similar name in Chinese as the victim’s.  D2 waited near the rest area and jumped out with a weapon.  Both defendants used a rod, be it wooden or iron, to hit the victim.  It is noted that the rods were wrapped with a piece of cloth, which is clearly designed to avoid any fingerprint impressed thereon.  I shall qualify that by the rods, what I meant is the handle of the rods.  Two culprits were involved.  These are aggravating factors, even though the attack lasted for a short time. 

7.  There are no material mitigating factors put forward by the defendants.  In fact, D1 does not even bother to make any mitigation at all.  Taking all factors into account, including the injuries sustained by the victim, I adopt a starting point of 3½ years for D1.  D2 occupied a relatively different role, and I would adopt a starting point of 3 years.  Both defendants do not have any mitigating ground for me to reduce the sentence. 

8.  Accordingly, I sentence D1 to 3½ years and D2 to 3 years' imprisonment.