HKSAR v. LIU CHING CHEUNG

DCCC 383/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 383 OF 2013

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. The defendant, Mr Liu Ching-cheung, pleaded guilty before me to one charge of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person Ordinance.

2. The offence took place on the 23rd day of December 2012 at Liu Ming Tat Tong, Chung Sum Tsuen, Sheung Shui Wai, New Territories.  The defendant stabbed and wounded a Mr Liu Lo-po with a knife.

3. The facts as admitted by the defendant reveal that the victim and the defendant are both of the surname Liu and are clan cousins.  Both of them resided at villages in Sheung Shui, New Territories.

4. At about 5 pm on the day in question, the victim was inside Liu Ming Tat Tong of Chung Sum Tsuen in Sheung Shui Wai, Tung Hing Road, Sheung Shui.  While the victim was looking at the notice board at the scene at that time, he was suddenly stabbed by the defendant from his right-hand side with a knife at the position of his right shoulder.

5. The victim turned and found the defendant holding a knife standing close to him.  The victim heard the defendant utter a sentence but he could not hear clearly.  The victim felt huge and increasing pain from the wound and was afraid that the defendant would attack him again, so he escaped immediately and reported to the police.

6. Police officers and ambulance soon arrived and the victim was hospitalised.  The defendant did not chase after the victim when the victim left the scene.

7. SPC 54486 conducted investigation and arrived at the defendant’s home in Chung Sum Tsuen of Sheung Shui Wai at about 5.28 pm on the same day.  The defendant was found to be conscious, normal and was speaking coherently.

8. The defendant admitted among other things that:

(a) He knew the victim who was his clan brother;

(b) He often quarrelled with the victim;

(c) The defendant went to the scene at about 3 pm that day and later he met the victim and had a dispute with him;

(d) He chopped the victim once using a knife he carried; and

(e) The knife was taken out from his home for self-defence.

9. At about 5.40 pm on the same day, SPC 54486 arrested the defendant for the offence of wounding and cautioned the defendant.  Under caution the defendant said, “It was me who had chopped him with a knife.  Who told him to always interfere with me?”  The defendant was asked as to the whereabouts of the knife he used to wound the victim, and he answered under caution that, “I discarded it at Liu Ming Tat Tong, let me bring you there.” 

10. The defendant then led the police to the backyard of Liu Ming Tat Tong and pointed at a knife with blue handle.  The knife was approximately 8 inches in length and the length of its blade was about 5 inches long. 

11. In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the defendant stated among other things that:

(a) The victim was his clan cousin and he had been bullied by the victim;

(b) Recently he competed with the victim for the post of manager;

(c) He brought the knife with him on the date of offence and went to Liu Ming Tat Tong;

(d) When he saw the victim, he used a knife and stabbed the victim’s shoulder once;

(e) He left after stabbing the victim once and he discarded the knife at the backyard of Liu Ming Tat Tong;

(f) He was shown the knife and he confirmed that he used it to attack the victim. He also confirmed that he brought the police to where he discarded the knife; and

(g) He was not suffering from any mental or long-term illness.

12. CCTV cameras were installed at a nearby convenience store.  The CCTV footages captured the defendant walking past the CCTV camera at 4.59 pm on the date of offence holding a sharp object with his right hand. 

13. The victim was sent to North District Hospital where he received medical attention.  He was diagnosed to have suffered from:

(a) A 2-cm laceration over right supraclavicular fossa;

(b) Extensive surgical emphysema;

(c) Diminished air entry over right side;

(d) X-ray of the chest and right shoulder showed right pneumothorax;

(e) Right chest wall injury and right pneumothorax.

14. The victim was admitted to the surgical ward and was required to stay in the hospital for 5 days before he was discharged. 

15. The defendant has a clear record.  He is now 69 years of age.  He has received education up to primary 4.  He is a retired person.  He is married with one daughter and two sons. 

16. Mr Chau, in mitigation, submits that the defendant has a close family.  His wife and one of his two sons are in court today.  He submits two mitigation letters, one written by his son and the other one written by fellow villagers of the defendant.

17. The defendant is a retired civil servant.  He had served the government for 25 years working as a cleaning worker.  He now depends on his monthly pension of $2,200 per month. The defendant’s sons work as electrician and office worker, and his daughter is a housewife.  I am told they live close to each other. 

18. Mr Chau submits that the defendant has received only limited education.  He worked until his retirement in 2001 and he concerned himself with the matters of the village, and he was spoken highly by fellow villagers as evidenced by the mitigation letter written and signed by many villagers.

19. The offence was committed out of character and the clear record of the defendant bears that out.  The defendant had a dispute with the victim and he chose the wrong option. 

20. Whilst the offence of wounding 17 is a serious offence, Mr Chau submits that the victim has suffered no long-term or permanent injury.  He was hospitalized for 5 days but no follow-up treatment was required.

21. Mr Chau submits that the offence of wounding with intent is a serious offence but each case is fact-specific when it comes to sentence.  Mr Chau reiterates that the offence was out of the defendant’s character, he has a clear record and in fact the defendant has indicated that he would plead guilty to the charge from the very beginning.  He has been in custody for 7 months and is under tremendous pressure.

22. In sentencing the defendant, I have borne in mind the nature of the offence, the facts of the case, the injuries sustained by the victim and the way the defendant attacked the victim and the weapon used. 

23. The defendant stabbed and wounded the victim with a knife.  The stab could have caused the victim very serious injuries.  Offence of this kind must be deterred.  On the facts before me, a 5 years’ imprisonment after trial is appropriate and I take that as the starting point.

24. The defendant pleaded guilty and he has a clear record, he is entitled to the full one-third discount.  That will bring the starting point down to 40 months’ imprisonment. The defendant is now 69 years old, and I am told he is suffering from prostate hypertrophy.  Because of the advanced age and the medical conditions of the defendant, on humanitarian ground, I will allow the defendant a further 6 months’ reduction. 

25. The facts as admitted by the defendant show that he often quarrelled with the victim and on the day in question he had a dispute with the victim.  I accept that the defendant was provoked to some extent.  I would allow the defendant a further discount of 2 months. 

26. For the reasons given, I sentence the defendant to 32 months’ imprisonment.