R. v. LEUNG WAI MING

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 188
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Litton, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court):

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

2. The applicant was convicted on his own plea on one charge of wounding with intent, contrary to section 17 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212, and was sentenced by HH Judge Pang on 11 March 1996 to three years' imprisonment.

3. The applicant was 30 years old at the time of conviction, with a relatively mild criminal record for burglary, criminal damage and common assault. The burglary had been committed in 1980 when he was about 15 years old. These were not factors which weighed in the scales for sentencing.

4. The offence occurred on 3 December 1995 at Room 3402, Heng Shan House, Heng On Estate, Ma On Shan where the applicant was living with his wife and five-year-old daughter.

5. At about 7.30pm the applicant's wife had just prepared the evening meal. The daughter was in the living room doing her homework. There was a heated argument in the kitchen between the applicant and his wife. Suddenly the applicant attacked his wife with a beef knife and chopped her on the back and continued the attack in the living room. She fell on the floor and the applicant continued chopping, injuring her hands as well, as she tried to ward off the blows. The daughter was told by the applicant to go into the toilet and he then locked her in. He threw the beef knife out of the window. By that time the victim was bleeding heavily from wounds in the head, neck, back and both hands. He then went into the kitchen and got a chopper, inflicting further injuries. One of the blows to the arm caused a compound fracture of the elbow. The wife has not fully recovered from the injuries.

6. The judge described this as a vicious and heartless attack, and so it was. The judge took as his starting point 41/2 years and gave a discount of one-third which in the circumstances was generous.

7. There are no reasons whatever to interfere with the sentence. The application is dismissed.