HKSAR v. PUI KAM CHUEN

DCCC 131/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 131 OF 2017

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Wounding with intent". He used a dining fork and a stool to attack someone he knows. He accused the victim of having an affair with his wife.

Summary of Facts

2.  About 2:45 p.m. on 1 December 2016, Mr. WONG (PW1; aged 59) was outside Wah Fu Cafe at Wah Fu (I) Shopping Centre, Wah Fu (I) Estate ("the Cafe").  Suddenly, an unknown person told PW1 that a bald man was running towards him.  PW1 turned around and saw the defendant, whom PW1 has known for 6 to 7 years, holding a metal fork in his right hand charging towards PW1.  The defendant shouted at PW1 "You cheated with my wife" and poked the fork towards PW1's head.  PW1 blocked the defendant with both hands.  The defendant stabbed PW1's hands 3 times and returned to the Cafe.  PW1's right index finger started to bleed.

3.  The defendant soon came out from the Cafe holding the fork and a metal stool in his right hand.  He dropped the fork as he approached PW1.  PW1 asked the defendant not to hit him anymore, but the defendant held the stool with both hands and hit PW1's head and upper body with the legs of the stool.  PW1 blocked the defendant with both hands and a walking stick which he had borrowed from a stranger.  The defendant used the stool to attack PW1 for 15 to 20 seconds then returned to the Cafe.  He continued scolding PW1 behind the window of the Cafe.  The Police was alerted.

4.  PW1 was sent to Queen Mary Hospital.  He sustained a 1.5 cm laceration on his right index finger, with the underlying indicis tendon partially cut.  Stitches were applied.  He also sustained a fracture on his left forearm.  He was hospitalized for 2 nights.

5.  The owner of the Cafe recognized the defendant being a regular customer.  She saw the defendant sitting down at the Cafe and ordering food about 15 minutes before the incident.

6.  PC 14270 arrested the defendant at the scene.  A 5-inch long metal fork was found on the ground outside the Cafe.  The stool used by the defendant to attack PW1, however, was not recovered.

Mitigation & Sentence

7. The defendant will be 50 in 2 days. He has 18 conviction records, which included 3 violence-related offences. The defendant had 2 marriages, with 1 son from each. His eldest son has reached majority and his youngest son is 15. Defence counsel Mr. FUNG informed me that the teenage boy is now looked after by the defendant's aunt.

8. In mitigation, Mr. FUNG submitted that the defendant has been in jail custody since his arrest in December 2016. A few months ago, the defendant suddenly became paralyzed (cause still unknown) and was hospitalized for 20 odd days. However, based on my observation in court today, the defendant's mobility did not appear to be impaired.

9. Regarding the present offence, Mr. FUNG submitted that it was not a pre-meditated attack. The defendant was ordering food shortly before the incident. He saw PW1 by coincidence and was unable to control his momentary impulse. Mr. FUNG explained that the alleged affair involved the defendant's cohabitee (not his lawful wife).

10. I accept that this case might have arisen from the defendant's out-of-control anger; and that the attack on PW1 was likely not pre-meditated. On the other hand, it is plain that no one is allowed to take the law into his own hands. Even if the defendant's cohabitee and PW1 were having an affair, there were lawful means for them to resolve the matter. What the defendant did was brutal and uncivilized. PW1's injuries were no doubt serious, needless to say the pain and suffering as well as the agony arising from this traumatic experience.

11. Fortunately, there is no suggestion that PW1 has sustained any permanent disabilities as a result of the defendant's attack. However, hitting someone at his head and upper body with a metal stool may well be fatal. Serious injuries and even death must have been foreseeable by the defendant at the time of launching the attack.

12. This is indeed a sad case. Sentencing of wounding offences is case specific and there is no tariff as such; however, sentences in the range of 3 to 12 years' imprisonment are by no means uncommon. I would not increase the starting point based on the defendant's violence-related convictions. Having considered all aspects of this case, I adopt a starting point of 2 years' imprisonment. With the indication of a guilty plea before trial, I grant a 25% discount, reducing the sentence to 18 months[1]. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence the defendant to 18 months' imprisonment.