|
DCCC365/2011
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
----------------------
----------------------
|
Before:
|
Deputy District Judge Sham
|
|
Present:
|
Ms Jennifer Fok, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Miss Diane Mervyne Crebbin, instructed by W K To & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant
|
|
Offence:
|
Wounding with intent (有意圖而傷人)
|
--------------------------
Reasons for Sentence
--------------------------
1. The defendant, Choy Wing-yee, pleaded guilty before me to one count of causing GBH with intent, contrary to section 17 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance.
2. The charge arose out of a dispute between lovers. The defendant spent a night at her boyfriend’s place (“the Victim”). In the following morning, having got up, she asked the boyfriend to go out to celebrate their 2nd year dating anniversary. Her boyfriend ignored her and continued to play the computer games. An argument ensued which developed into a fight.
3. She hit the boyfriend in his private part, the boyfriend fought back by hitting and kicking her. She grabbed a paper cutter and slashed the boyfriend’s arm for a few times, causing some deep wounds on the forearm.
4. In mitigation, defence counsel had put forward everything that could be said in her favour, such as she is a young girl of previous good character; she is extremely remorseful for what she did; the attack was not premeditated; the victim’s injuries have fully recovered and suffers no permanent disability; and it is highly unlikely that the defendant will commit similar offence in the future.
5. The charge to which she pleaded guilty is a very serious offence. It is the most serious type of wounding charge. It carries the maximum sentence of life imprisonment. In the case of Tse Hok Lam, CACC85/2005, the appellate court says the range of sentences for this type of offence was 3 to 12 years’ imprisonment, but everything would depend heavily on the particular facts of each case. This is certainly not a case where the defendant could be described as having planned the attack in advance.
6. The event leading up to the offence was trivial indeed. It all began with the defendant asking the boyfriend to go out to celebrate their anniversary of dating. Obviously the boyfriend was not a romantic companion. He was too busy playing his computer games to be bothered. Argument ensued which developed into fight.
7. The admitted facts state that in the heat of the argument the defendant hit the boyfriend’s private part. I am not sure if she really aimed at that particular spot, but nevertheless the boyfriend fought back by kicking and hitting her. Whether he had stopped there - that was not clear.
8. The admitted facts continue. Subsequently the defendant took out a paper cutter from the boyfriend’s jacket and slashed him on the left forearm a few times. Although it has not been put forward this was a case of her acting in self-defence at the time going beyond reasonable force- that was a possibility.
9. She used more force than it was necessary to protect yourself. In the incident she also suffered injuries. She had redness over forehead and neck, swelling over forehead. This is more like a case of fighting between two people rather than one person attacking another.
10. I am prepared to accept that she was provoked to a certain extent, and on that basis, taking everything into account, I am prepared to take a very lenient view of the matter. I am of the view that this is a suitable case for a CSO order.
11. With defendant’s consent, I order her to do the community service work for 240 hours.
|
Deputy District Judge Sham |
|