District CourtHis Honour Judge Tam9/7/2025[2025] HKDC 1185
DCCC950/2024
A A
B B
DCCC 950/2024
C [2025] HKDC 1185 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 950 OF 2024
F F
G ---------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I ZHOU FENG I
----------------------------------
J J
K Before: His Honour Judge Tam K
Date: 10 July 2025
L L
Present: Mr Tan Xiao Yi, Ivan, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR
M Mr Ng Yiu Hang, Henry, instructed by Wat & Co, assigned M
by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
N N
Offence: Wounding with intent（有意圖而傷人）
O O
P
----------------------------------------- P
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Q Q
-----------------------------------------
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. Mr Zhou pleaded guilty before me to one charge of Wounding
C with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person C
Ordinance, Cap 212. Particulars are that he, on 5 November 2023, at Room
D D
E, 9th Floor, Shun King Building, Nos 17-33 Ka Lok Street, Kwun Tong,
E Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully and maliciously wounded Cao Wei E
with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.
F F
G Facts admitted by Mr Zhou G
H H
2. At all material times, Mr Zhou was sharing the subject flat, ie
I Room E of 9th Floor, with Mr Cao Wei (PW1). I
J J
3. On 5 November 2023, at about 8:30 pm, inside the flat, PW1
K was chatting with his friend Ms Dong. PW1 went over to turn on the air K
conditioner. Mr Zhou would not have it and turned it off. PW1 turned it
L L
on again which was met with Mr Zhou turning it off again.
M M
4. What’s more, Mr Zhou went to the kitchen to fetch a chopper
N N
and with it chopped the back of PW1’s head once. PW1 bled profusely as
O a result. O
P P
5. Ms Dong left the flat to call for help. Mr Zhou left after her.
Q Q
6. PW1 was later admitted to the A & E Department of Queen
R R
Elizabeth Hospital. Medical examination revealed the following injuries:-
S S
(a) An over 20 cm laceration from vertex to left side of face;
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
(b) Profuse bleeding with arterial spurter;
C C
(c) Fracture on the left skull with left epidural hematoma
D D
and subarachnoid hemorrhage;
E E
(d) Left periorbital swelling with bruising;
F F
G (e) A 5 cm laceration at upper chest exposing subcutaneous G
fat; and
H H
I (f) Mild superficial abrasion over left side of back. I
J J
7. Emergency operations were conducted on PW1. He was
K discharged on 10 November 2023. K
L L
8. At about 8:49 pm on the day of incident, a police constable
M noticed Mr Zhou to be wearing bloodstained clothing so he intercepted Mr M
Zhou for enquiries. Mr Zhou stated he chopped his neighbour’s head at his
N N
residence. Mr Zhou elaborated by saying that it started with a quarrel
O between them which led to his neighbor trying to attack him with a chopper; O
he (Mr Zhou) took the chopper from his neighbor and he chopped his
P P
neighbor with it.
Q Q
9. Mr Zhou was arrested. Under caution, he said that his
R R
neighbor wanted to chop him, and that was why he took the chopper and
S chopped his neighbor. S
T T
10. At a subsequent cautioned VRI, Mr Zhou stated the following:
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
(a) He was acting in self-defence by chopping PW1;
C C
(b) PW1 wanted to chop him with a chopper; he blocked
D D
PW1’s attack with his hand; the chopper fell onto the
E floor; he then chopped PW1 with the chopper; and E
F F
(c) He did not sustain any injuries.
G G
11. Mr Zhou now admits he unlawfully and maliciously wounded
H H
PW1 with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.
I I
Criminal record
J J
K 12. Mr Zhou has a previous clear record in Hong Kong. K
L L
Antecedents
M M
13. Mr Zhou is aged 38 (36 at the time of the offence), educated
N N
to High school level in the Mainland, unemployed. Mr Zhou lived in
O Henan Province. His family members include his parents, an elder brother O
and a son. Mr Zhou came to Hong Kong as a traveler. Mr Zhou was a
P P
Form 8 recognizance holder at the time of the offence.
Q Q
Mitigation
R R
S 14. Mr Henry Ng of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal S
Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Zhou. The following is a summary of the
T T
mitigation submissions.
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
C 15. Mr Zhou was born in Henan, Mainland China. He is married. C
His wife (38) is a housewife. They have a son (13) studying in F1.
D D
E 16. Mr Zhou’s father (72) previously worked as a farmer but now E
is retired. The father suffers from gastric ulcers and depends on long-term
F F
medication. Mr Zhou’s mother (70) is a housewife. Mr Zhou has an elder
G brother (43) working as a factory worker. Prior to the offence, Mr Zhou G
was living with his parents in the Mainland.
H H
I 17. Previously, Mr Zhou has worked as an automobile factory I
worker earning RMB7,000 to 8,000 Yuan a month for more than 2 years.
J J
He was the sole bread winner of his family. At the time of the offence, he
K was in Hong Kong on the strength of a travel document. K
L L
18. Mr Zhou has a clear criminal record in Hong Kong.
M M
19. Mr Zhou pleaded guilty as soon as possible, showing his
N N
remorse.
O O
20. The victim PW1 was a good friend of Mr Zhou’s brother. So
P P
Mr Zhou stayed in PW1’s residence. On the day, Mr Zhou had a dispute
Q with PW1 over the switching on of the air-conditioner. In the heat of the Q
moment, Mr Zhou lost his mind and committed the offence out of
R R
momentary impulse.
S S
21. Mr Zhou is now very remorseful and has deep reflection. He
T T
is very sorry and regretful for the injuries inflicted on PW1.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
C 22. The offence consisted of a single incident and was not C
premeditated. Mr Ng’s instruction was that Mr Zhou only struck PW1 once
D D
with the chopper.
E E
23. Mr Zhou understood that striking PW1 on the head with the
F F
chopper (a lethal weapon) could have unimaginable consequences. He
G accepts and is prepared to receive a relatively higher level of criminal G
liability.
H H
I 24. Wounding with intent is a very serious offence, the maximum I
penalty being life imprisonment. The Court of Appeal has not laid down
J J
any sentencing guidelines; so the sentence will depend on the
K circumstances of the case. K
L L
25. The usual sentence after trial for this offence is 3 to 12 years’
M imprisonment: HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [2013] 6 HKC 225. There the M
Court of Appeal also laid down some useful sentencing principles:
N N
O “48. Thus in determining the gravity of the offence, the factor O
of primary importance is the intent of the assailant to cause the
victim really serious bodily harm. Whether that intent was fully
P P
realised in the injuries sought to be inflicted has been said to be
of ‘secondary significance’.[HKSAR v Nguyen Van-Phuong
Q [2006] HKCU 432; (CACC 341/2005, Stuart-Moore VP and Q
Burrell J, 9 March 2006, unreported).] That must be so for, as
the Court of Final Appeal pointed out in the Lau Cheong case
R [Lau Cheong & Anor v HKSAR [2002] 3 HKC 146, (2002) 5 R
HKCFAR 415], the consequences to the victim may not be as
S the assailant intended. Tragically, they may be worse, but even S
when they are not or they are not as bad as the assailant hoped
to achieve that may not lessen the gravity of the offence. For the
T failure of the offender to achieve the level of harm he intended T
may be due to resistance by the victim, the intervention of others,
speedy medical attention or purely unanticipated fortuitous
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B circumstances. That is why, even though the consequences to B
the victim will always be an important factor, the gravity of the
C offence lies in the deliberate resort to violence with the intent by C
the offender to inflict by such violence really serious harm on
the victim.
D D
49. Consequently, many of the factors to which a court will
E
have regard in determining the gravity of a s 17 offence and the E
culpability of the offender will relate to the type of harm
intended to be inflicted, the means by which that harm was
F inflicted and the circumstances generally surrounding the assault. F
Thus, without attempting to exhaustively identi[f]y all the
relevant factors, the usual ones will be the extent to which the
G G
assault was premeditated, the reasons or motivation underlying
the assault upon the victim, the mental or emotional state of the
H assailant at the time of the assault, whether alcohol or drugs H
contributed to the actions of the assailant, whether the assault
was committed by the assailant alone or as part of a group, the
I type of weapons employed, the level of force or aggression and I
the persistence with which the assault was pressed home, the
J injuries caused to the victim and the effect of the assault upon J
the victim and those close to him or her.
K 50. In arriving at an appropriate sentence the court will have K
regard not just to the need to punish the offender for his conduct,
but also to the sentencing principles of deterrence, both general
L L
and individual, and, in appropriate cases, the need to denounce
the resort to violence. Of course deterrence and denunciation
M are always important when there is resort to violence but there M
may be particular situations that call for greater deterrence, such
as in triad gang or contract attacks, or more denunciatory
N sentences, such as in domestic violence cases.” N
O O
26. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Ma Tik Lun Dicky [2015] 1
P HKLRD 380 affirmed the sentencing principles set out in Chan Chun Tat. P
The Court of Appeal set out a number of important factors for sentencing:
Q Q
R “40. In HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [2013] 6 HKC 225, the R
Court of Appeal reiterated that “wounding with intent” is a
serious offence which warrants a deterrent sentence, and that the
S major sentencing considerations are: [At 236F-H ie para 49.] S
T
(1) the extent to which the assault was premeditated; T
(2) the motivation underlying the assault;
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
(3) the mental or emotional state of the assailant;
C C
(4) whether the assailant was acting under the influence of
alcohol or drugs;
D D
(5) whether the assault was committed by the assailant alone
E
or as part of a group; E
(6) the type of weapons employed;
F F
(7) the level of force used;
G G
(8) the injuries caused to the victim;
H (9) the effect of the assault upon the victim (and those close H
to him or her).
I The Court of Appeal also pointed out that in respect of certain I
acts of violence, such as those involving triad gang attacks, the
J court must issue strong denunciation and impose sentences with J
a greater deterrent effect. [See 236I-237B ie para 50.]
K 41. Furthermore, the aggravating factors for this type of K
wounding case are: (1) the defendant was the principal offender;
(2) the assault was committed in company; (3) the assault was
L L
unprovoked; (4) the assault took place in a public place; (5) the
assault went on after the victim had fallen down; (6) the assault
M went on after the victim became unable to defend himself; (7) M
the victim suffered serious and lasting injuries; (8) at the police
interview, the defendant misled the police as to the facts,
N indicating a lack of remorse. See [13] of the Reasons for N
Judgment in HKSAR v Chui Kwok Ming (unrep., CACC
O 380/2013, [2014] CHKEC 513) (27 March 2014).” O
P 27. In the case of HKSAR v Wong Luk Sau [2013] 2 HKLRD 201, P
the applicant was charged with one count of wounding with intent, he was
Q Q
convicted and sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment after trial. The applicant
R applied for leave to appeal against sentence. The facts were that the R
applicant (72) and the victim (78) had a dispute over a game of chess. On
S S
the day in question, the applicant demanded compensation from the victim
T for an earlier incident. The two parties had an argument. The applicant T
took out a knife. The victim ran away; but the applicant caught up and
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
stabbed the victim in the left armpit, causing a 1.5 cm stab wound. The
C applicant continued to attack him with the knife. As the victim tried to C
fend off the attack with his left hand, his left thumb and left index finger
D D
were injured. The applicant ran away and the police were called.
E E
28. The Court of Appeal considered that there were aggravating
F F
features in the case:
G G
“19. We agree with the respondent’s submission that there
H were aggravating features in the present case. The applicant had H
a quarrel with the victim over a chess game. The attack on the
victim was not made when the applicant was in a rage in the heat
I of the quarrel; instead, one to three days later (the quarrel could I
have taken place on 20 June, 21 June or 22 June) the applicant,
J hiding two sharp knives on his person, went to the victim to get J
even with him. The victim tried to flee and avoid the applicant,
but the applicant chased him relentlessly and stabbed him with
K a sharp knife. The attack was aimed at the left side of the K
victim’s chest and caused bleeding in his left axillary region. It
is fortunate that the victim did not suffer more serious injuries
L L
and that neither his heart nor thoracic cavity was injured.
However, the attack was one which could have inflicted serious
M injuries on the victim. M
20. When the victim, injured by the stabbing, tried to defend
N himself, the applicant continued to attack him and injured his N
left hand as well. The applicant went on and chased the victim
O until the victim took refuge in the office of a District Councillor, O
and even then the applicant remained outside the office and
shouted abuses.
P P
21. At the material time, the applicant was not suffering a
Q
momentary loss of reason, but instead was committing a Q
premeditated offence.
R …… R
24. It is true that the injuries suffered by the victim in the
S S
present case were not serious. However, the applicant went to
the victim, bringing along two sharp knives, and stabbed him in
T his left flank. Serious injuries could have been inflicted on the T
victim. In our view, it is not enough just to consider the injuries.
The court should consider all the circumstances. As the Court
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B of Appeal pointed out in Hung Kar Chun [Secretary for Justice B
v Hung Kar Chun [2011] 1 HKLRD 1083], the courts would not
C tolerate attacking another person with a lethal weapon such as a C
knife on minor provocation or while having a dispute, and for
this type of cases the courts would impose more severe and
D deterrent sentences.” D
E E
29. Having considered the circumstances of the case and the
F background of the applicant (old age, previous heart surgery and only one F
record of illegal gambling), the Court of Appeal was of the view that the
G G
appropriate starting point is imprisonment for 2 years and 3 months.
H Therefore, the appeal against sentence was allowed. H
I I
30. Comparing that case with the present case, Mr Ng submitted
J that the present case did not have aggravating features as such. Mr Zhou J
committed the offence without premeditation due to a momentary lapse of
K K
reason during an argument. Mr Zhou did not chase PW1 with the chopper
L and continued to attack him after the latter had sustained injuries. Mr Ng’s L
instruction was that Mr Zhou only struck PW1 once and then stopped.
M M
N 31. However, Mr Ng acknowledged that Mr Zhou did strike PW1 N
on the head; the injuries were also much more severe; and that Mr Zhou
O O
was not old nor had he undergone any surgery.
P P
32. In HKSAR v Chu Sze Wing, CACC 289/2011, the appellant
Q Q
was convicted after trial of wounding with intent and was sentenced to 5
R years’ imprisonment. R
S S
33. The facts were that an apartment was divided into 12 wooden
T cubicles, each with its own door. The appellant occupied one of these T
cubicles, his immediate neighbor being the victim. There was bad blood
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
between the appellant and the victim. They had exchanged words on at
C least two earlier occasions concerning domestic matters: creating a C
disturbance at unsocial hours and the like. On the morning in question, the
D D
victim created what the appellant considered to be an unnecessary
E disturbance. Enraged, the appellant (62) seized a chopping knife, stepped E
out of his cubicle and banged on the door of the victim’s cubicle. When
F F
the victim opened his door, the appellant used the chopping knife to strike
G at the victim’s face and head, causing three wounds: a 3 cm wound to his G
forehead, a 5 cm wound to his right cheek, and a 4 cm wound to the left
H H
corner of his mouth. The wounds sustained by the victim were not serious
I and he was released from hospital the same day. I
J J
34. Having considered the attack was not premeditated and that
K fortunately the injuries sustained were not serious, the Court of Appeal was K
of the view that an appropriate sentence should have been one of 4 years’
L L
imprisonment. The appeal against sentence was allowed.
M M
35. Comparing that case with the present case, Mr Ng submitted
N N
that in both cases, a chopper knife was used to strike at the victim’s face
O and head. However, Mr Ng acknowledged that PW1’s injuries were more O
severe.
P P
Q 36. Mr Ng finally referred to a non-binding sentencing case Q
HKSAR v Ng How Yee [2025] HKDC 207.
R R
S 37. Mr Ng asked the court to take into account the following S
circumstances:
T T
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
(a) Mr Zhou acted alone;
C C
(b) The assault arose out of an argument and was a result
D D
of Mr Zhou’s outraged emotions;
E E
(c) The offence was not committed in a public place;
F F
G (d) Mr Zhou only struck PW1 once with the chopper G
according to instructions;
H H
I (e) Mr Zhou did not continue to attack PW1 according to I
instructions;
J J
K (f) There is no evidence of permanent serious injury or K
significant long-term impact on PW1’s daily life;
L L
M (g) There was no premeditation or pre-planning; M
N N
(h) Mr Zhou committed the offence out of momentary
O impulse; and O
P P
(i) Mr Zhou is remorseful.
Q Q
38. Mr Zhou has had only one visit from his Mainland wife during
R R
remand because of financial constraints. Mr Zhou truly feels sorry for what
S he has done and has learnt a lesson. He promises the court that he will S
never re-offend. He misses his son and hopes to return to the Mainland to
T T
look after his elderly parents and his family.
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
C 39. Mr Ng asked the court to adopt a starting point of no more C
than 5 years’ imprisonment; and he reminded the court to give Mr Zhou a
D D
1/3 sentencing discount for a plea of guilty in good time.
E E
40. Mr Ng submitted on behalf of Mr Zhou a mitigation letter
F F
written in Chinese by Mr Zhou himself. The contents are generally that
G Mr Zhou sincerely apologizes to PW1; that Mr Zhou is regretful; that he G
promises to reform himself and make himself a new man. Mr Zhou asked
H H
for a chance and an early re-integration into society so he may take care of
I his family and his elderly parents. I
J J
41. When asked by the court, Mr Ng submitted after taking
K instructions that Mr Zhou overstayed his travel to Hong Kong and was K
therefore issued with a Form 8 recognizance pending repatriation back to
L L
the Mainland.
M M
Sentence
N N
O 42. I have seen the two medical reports (P1) and the photo album O
of injuries (P2) submitted by the prosecution.
P P
Q 43. The descriptions of the injuries in the Amended Summary of Q
Facts para 6 as well as the photo album show that there were at least two
R R
strikes with the chopper. I therefore reject the mitigation that there was
S only one strike with the chopper. However, there was no evidence the S
second strike was levelled against PW1 after he had fallen down or after
T T
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
he was placed in a position in which he was unable to defend himself as a
C result of the first strike. C
D D
44. Section 17 Wounding offence is a serious offence for which
E the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. The usual sentence is between E
3 and 12 years’ imprisonment after trial. Both deterrence and denunciation
F F
are at the forefront of sentencing principles in this type of offence.
G G
45. In this case, provocation, if any, came only from Mr Zhou
H H
who was staying at the subject premises at the courtesy of PW1 who was a
I good friend of Mr Zhou’s elder brother. An attack with or without weapon I
was inexcusable as a return of compliment and could only be attributable
J J
to Mr Zhou’s fiery character. Of course, the subject attack was aggravated
K by the use of a weapon which was a chopper conveniently taken from the K
kitchen. The attack was merciless and came from behind PW1’s head.
L L
Because of the aimed bodily position, the extent of possible injuries was
M unimaginable and could even lead to death. In the result, PW1 sustained M
serious injuries and underwent head and other operations and he had to stay
N N
in hospital for 5 days.
O O
46. Mr Ng said there were no aggravating features. I disagree.
P P
The attack was unprovoked. Furthermore, on arrest and caution, Mr Zhou
Q lied to the police and told them it was PW1 who first armed himself with Q
the chopper and wanted to chop Mr Zhou with it; that he (Mr Zhou) was
R R
merely acting in self-defence after picking up the chopper. This amply
S shows Mr Zhou’s initial lack of remorse (see Ma Tik Lun Dicky para 41). S
T T
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
47. On the matter of Form 8 recognizance, I do not regard this as
C an aggravating factor here as Mr Zhou was not a torture claimant. C
D D
48. Having considered all relevant circumstances including the
E fact that Mr Zhou acted out of momentary impulse, I adjudge a starting E
point of 4 years and 9 months’ imprisonment to be appropriate and this is
F F
the one which I adopt.
G G
49. Mr Zhou pleaded guilty in good time and thus is entitled to
H H
the full 1/3 sentencing discount. For his clear record in Hong Kong, I
I exercise my discretion to give him a further one month off after the 1/3 I
discount. There are no other mitigating factors of weight to warrant
J J
another sentence reduction.
K K
(Mr Zhou, please stand)
L L
M 50. The sentence is 37 months’ imprisonment. M
N N
O O
( Isaac Tam )
P P
District Judge
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 950/2024
C [2025] HKDC 1185 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 950 OF 2024
F F
G ---------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I ZHOU FENG I
----------------------------------
J J
K Before: His Honour Judge Tam K
Date: 10 July 2025
L L
Present: Mr Tan Xiao Yi, Ivan, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR
M Mr Ng Yiu Hang, Henry, instructed by Wat & Co, assigned M
by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant
N N
Offence: Wounding with intent（有意圖而傷人）
O O
P
----------------------------------------- P
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Q Q
-----------------------------------------
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. Mr Zhou pleaded guilty before me to one charge of Wounding
C with intent, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Person C
Ordinance, Cap 212. Particulars are that he, on 5 November 2023, at Room
D D
E, 9th Floor, Shun King Building, Nos 17-33 Ka Lok Street, Kwun Tong,
E Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully and maliciously wounded Cao Wei E
with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.
F F
G Facts admitted by Mr Zhou G
H H
2. At all material times, Mr Zhou was sharing the subject flat, ie
I Room E of 9th Floor, with Mr Cao Wei (PW1). I
J J
3. On 5 November 2023, at about 8:30 pm, inside the flat, PW1
K was chatting with his friend Ms Dong. PW1 went over to turn on the air K
conditioner. Mr Zhou would not have it and turned it off. PW1 turned it
L L
on again which was met with Mr Zhou turning it off again.
M M
4. What’s more, Mr Zhou went to the kitchen to fetch a chopper
N N
and with it chopped the back of PW1’s head once. PW1 bled profusely as
O a result. O
P P
5. Ms Dong left the flat to call for help. Mr Zhou left after her.
Q Q
6. PW1 was later admitted to the A & E Department of Queen
R R
Elizabeth Hospital. Medical examination revealed the following injuries:-
S S
(a) An over 20 cm laceration from vertex to left side of face;
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
(b) Profuse bleeding with arterial spurter;
C C
(c) Fracture on the left skull with left epidural hematoma
D D
and subarachnoid hemorrhage;
E E
(d) Left periorbital swelling with bruising;
F F
G (e) A 5 cm laceration at upper chest exposing subcutaneous G
fat; and
H H
I (f) Mild superficial abrasion over left side of back. I
J J
7. Emergency operations were conducted on PW1. He was
K discharged on 10 November 2023. K
L L
8. At about 8:49 pm on the day of incident, a police constable
M noticed Mr Zhou to be wearing bloodstained clothing so he intercepted Mr M
Zhou for enquiries. Mr Zhou stated he chopped his neighbour’s head at his
N N
residence. Mr Zhou elaborated by saying that it started with a quarrel
O between them which led to his neighbor trying to attack him with a chopper; O
he (Mr Zhou) took the chopper from his neighbor and he chopped his
P P
neighbor with it.
Q Q
9. Mr Zhou was arrested. Under caution, he said that his
R R
neighbor wanted to chop him, and that was why he took the chopper and
S chopped his neighbor. S
T T
10. At a subsequent cautioned VRI, Mr Zhou stated the following:
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
(a) He was acting in self-defence by chopping PW1;
C C
(b) PW1 wanted to chop him with a chopper; he blocked
D D
PW1’s attack with his hand; the chopper fell onto the
E floor; he then chopped PW1 with the chopper; and E
F F
(c) He did not sustain any injuries.
G G
11. Mr Zhou now admits he unlawfully and maliciously wounded
H H
PW1 with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.
I I
Criminal record
J J
K 12. Mr Zhou has a previous clear record in Hong Kong. K
L L
Antecedents
M M
13. Mr Zhou is aged 38 (36 at the time of the offence), educated
N N
to High school level in the Mainland, unemployed. Mr Zhou lived in
O Henan Province. His family members include his parents, an elder brother O
and a son. Mr Zhou came to Hong Kong as a traveler. Mr Zhou was a
P P
Form 8 recognizance holder at the time of the offence.
Q Q
Mitigation
R R
S 14. Mr Henry Ng of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal S
Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Zhou. The following is a summary of the
T T
mitigation submissions.
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
C 15. Mr Zhou was born in Henan, Mainland China. He is married. C
His wife (38) is a housewife. They have a son (13) studying in F1.
D D
E 16. Mr Zhou’s father (72) previously worked as a farmer but now E
is retired. The father suffers from gastric ulcers and depends on long-term
F F
medication. Mr Zhou’s mother (70) is a housewife. Mr Zhou has an elder
G brother (43) working as a factory worker. Prior to the offence, Mr Zhou G
was living with his parents in the Mainland.
H H
I 17. Previously, Mr Zhou has worked as an automobile factory I
worker earning RMB7,000 to 8,000 Yuan a month for more than 2 years.
J J
He was the sole bread winner of his family. At the time of the offence, he
K was in Hong Kong on the strength of a travel document. K
L L
18. Mr Zhou has a clear criminal record in Hong Kong.
M M
19. Mr Zhou pleaded guilty as soon as possible, showing his
N N
remorse.
O O
20. The victim PW1 was a good friend of Mr Zhou’s brother. So
P P
Mr Zhou stayed in PW1’s residence. On the day, Mr Zhou had a dispute
Q with PW1 over the switching on of the air-conditioner. In the heat of the Q
moment, Mr Zhou lost his mind and committed the offence out of
R R
momentary impulse.
S S
21. Mr Zhou is now very remorseful and has deep reflection. He
T T
is very sorry and regretful for the injuries inflicted on PW1.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
C 22. The offence consisted of a single incident and was not C
premeditated. Mr Ng’s instruction was that Mr Zhou only struck PW1 once
D D
with the chopper.
E E
23. Mr Zhou understood that striking PW1 on the head with the
F F
chopper (a lethal weapon) could have unimaginable consequences. He
G accepts and is prepared to receive a relatively higher level of criminal G
liability.
H H
I 24. Wounding with intent is a very serious offence, the maximum I
penalty being life imprisonment. The Court of Appeal has not laid down
J J
any sentencing guidelines; so the sentence will depend on the
K circumstances of the case. K
L L
25. The usual sentence after trial for this offence is 3 to 12 years’
M imprisonment: HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [2013] 6 HKC 225. There the M
Court of Appeal also laid down some useful sentencing principles:
N N
O “48. Thus in determining the gravity of the offence, the factor O
of primary importance is the intent of the assailant to cause the
victim really serious bodily harm. Whether that intent was fully
P P
realised in the injuries sought to be inflicted has been said to be
of ‘secondary significance’.[HKSAR v Nguyen Van-Phuong
Q [2006] HKCU 432; (CACC 341/2005, Stuart-Moore VP and Q
Burrell J, 9 March 2006, unreported).] That must be so for, as
the Court of Final Appeal pointed out in the Lau Cheong case
R [Lau Cheong & Anor v HKSAR [2002] 3 HKC 146, (2002) 5 R
HKCFAR 415], the consequences to the victim may not be as
S the assailant intended. Tragically, they may be worse, but even S
when they are not or they are not as bad as the assailant hoped
to achieve that may not lessen the gravity of the offence. For the
T failure of the offender to achieve the level of harm he intended T
may be due to resistance by the victim, the intervention of others,
speedy medical attention or purely unanticipated fortuitous
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B circumstances. That is why, even though the consequences to B
the victim will always be an important factor, the gravity of the
C offence lies in the deliberate resort to violence with the intent by C
the offender to inflict by such violence really serious harm on
the victim.
D D
49. Consequently, many of the factors to which a court will
E
have regard in determining the gravity of a s 17 offence and the E
culpability of the offender will relate to the type of harm
intended to be inflicted, the means by which that harm was
F inflicted and the circumstances generally surrounding the assault. F
Thus, without attempting to exhaustively identi[f]y all the
relevant factors, the usual ones will be the extent to which the
G G
assault was premeditated, the reasons or motivation underlying
the assault upon the victim, the mental or emotional state of the
H assailant at the time of the assault, whether alcohol or drugs H
contributed to the actions of the assailant, whether the assault
was committed by the assailant alone or as part of a group, the
I type of weapons employed, the level of force or aggression and I
the persistence with which the assault was pressed home, the
J injuries caused to the victim and the effect of the assault upon J
the victim and those close to him or her.
K 50. In arriving at an appropriate sentence the court will have K
regard not just to the need to punish the offender for his conduct,
but also to the sentencing principles of deterrence, both general
L L
and individual, and, in appropriate cases, the need to denounce
the resort to violence. Of course deterrence and denunciation
M are always important when there is resort to violence but there M
may be particular situations that call for greater deterrence, such
as in triad gang or contract attacks, or more denunciatory
N sentences, such as in domestic violence cases.” N
O O
26. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Ma Tik Lun Dicky [2015] 1
P HKLRD 380 affirmed the sentencing principles set out in Chan Chun Tat. P
The Court of Appeal set out a number of important factors for sentencing:
Q Q
R “40. In HKSAR v Chan Chun Tat [2013] 6 HKC 225, the R
Court of Appeal reiterated that “wounding with intent” is a
serious offence which warrants a deterrent sentence, and that the
S major sentencing considerations are: [At 236F-H ie para 49.] S
T
(1) the extent to which the assault was premeditated; T
(2) the motivation underlying the assault;
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
(3) the mental or emotional state of the assailant;
C C
(4) whether the assailant was acting under the influence of
alcohol or drugs;
D D
(5) whether the assault was committed by the assailant alone
E
or as part of a group; E
(6) the type of weapons employed;
F F
(7) the level of force used;
G G
(8) the injuries caused to the victim;
H (9) the effect of the assault upon the victim (and those close H
to him or her).
I The Court of Appeal also pointed out that in respect of certain I
acts of violence, such as those involving triad gang attacks, the
J court must issue strong denunciation and impose sentences with J
a greater deterrent effect. [See 236I-237B ie para 50.]
K 41. Furthermore, the aggravating factors for this type of K
wounding case are: (1) the defendant was the principal offender;
(2) the assault was committed in company; (3) the assault was
L L
unprovoked; (4) the assault took place in a public place; (5) the
assault went on after the victim had fallen down; (6) the assault
M went on after the victim became unable to defend himself; (7) M
the victim suffered serious and lasting injuries; (8) at the police
interview, the defendant misled the police as to the facts,
N indicating a lack of remorse. See [13] of the Reasons for N
Judgment in HKSAR v Chui Kwok Ming (unrep., CACC
O 380/2013, [2014] CHKEC 513) (27 March 2014).” O
P 27. In the case of HKSAR v Wong Luk Sau [2013] 2 HKLRD 201, P
the applicant was charged with one count of wounding with intent, he was
Q Q
convicted and sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment after trial. The applicant
R applied for leave to appeal against sentence. The facts were that the R
applicant (72) and the victim (78) had a dispute over a game of chess. On
S S
the day in question, the applicant demanded compensation from the victim
T for an earlier incident. The two parties had an argument. The applicant T
took out a knife. The victim ran away; but the applicant caught up and
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
stabbed the victim in the left armpit, causing a 1.5 cm stab wound. The
C applicant continued to attack him with the knife. As the victim tried to C
fend off the attack with his left hand, his left thumb and left index finger
D D
were injured. The applicant ran away and the police were called.
E E
28. The Court of Appeal considered that there were aggravating
F F
features in the case:
G G
“19. We agree with the respondent’s submission that there
H were aggravating features in the present case. The applicant had H
a quarrel with the victim over a chess game. The attack on the
victim was not made when the applicant was in a rage in the heat
I of the quarrel; instead, one to three days later (the quarrel could I
have taken place on 20 June, 21 June or 22 June) the applicant,
J hiding two sharp knives on his person, went to the victim to get J
even with him. The victim tried to flee and avoid the applicant,
but the applicant chased him relentlessly and stabbed him with
K a sharp knife. The attack was aimed at the left side of the K
victim’s chest and caused bleeding in his left axillary region. It
is fortunate that the victim did not suffer more serious injuries
L L
and that neither his heart nor thoracic cavity was injured.
However, the attack was one which could have inflicted serious
M injuries on the victim. M
20. When the victim, injured by the stabbing, tried to defend
N himself, the applicant continued to attack him and injured his N
left hand as well. The applicant went on and chased the victim
O until the victim took refuge in the office of a District Councillor, O
and even then the applicant remained outside the office and
shouted abuses.
P P
21. At the material time, the applicant was not suffering a
Q
momentary loss of reason, but instead was committing a Q
premeditated offence.
R …… R
24. It is true that the injuries suffered by the victim in the
S S
present case were not serious. However, the applicant went to
the victim, bringing along two sharp knives, and stabbed him in
T his left flank. Serious injuries could have been inflicted on the T
victim. In our view, it is not enough just to consider the injuries.
The court should consider all the circumstances. As the Court
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B of Appeal pointed out in Hung Kar Chun [Secretary for Justice B
v Hung Kar Chun [2011] 1 HKLRD 1083], the courts would not
C tolerate attacking another person with a lethal weapon such as a C
knife on minor provocation or while having a dispute, and for
this type of cases the courts would impose more severe and
D deterrent sentences.” D
E E
29. Having considered the circumstances of the case and the
F background of the applicant (old age, previous heart surgery and only one F
record of illegal gambling), the Court of Appeal was of the view that the
G G
appropriate starting point is imprisonment for 2 years and 3 months.
H Therefore, the appeal against sentence was allowed. H
I I
30. Comparing that case with the present case, Mr Ng submitted
J that the present case did not have aggravating features as such. Mr Zhou J
committed the offence without premeditation due to a momentary lapse of
K K
reason during an argument. Mr Zhou did not chase PW1 with the chopper
L and continued to attack him after the latter had sustained injuries. Mr Ng’s L
instruction was that Mr Zhou only struck PW1 once and then stopped.
M M
N 31. However, Mr Ng acknowledged that Mr Zhou did strike PW1 N
on the head; the injuries were also much more severe; and that Mr Zhou
O O
was not old nor had he undergone any surgery.
P P
32. In HKSAR v Chu Sze Wing, CACC 289/2011, the appellant
Q Q
was convicted after trial of wounding with intent and was sentenced to 5
R years’ imprisonment. R
S S
33. The facts were that an apartment was divided into 12 wooden
T cubicles, each with its own door. The appellant occupied one of these T
cubicles, his immediate neighbor being the victim. There was bad blood
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
between the appellant and the victim. They had exchanged words on at
C least two earlier occasions concerning domestic matters: creating a C
disturbance at unsocial hours and the like. On the morning in question, the
D D
victim created what the appellant considered to be an unnecessary
E disturbance. Enraged, the appellant (62) seized a chopping knife, stepped E
out of his cubicle and banged on the door of the victim’s cubicle. When
F F
the victim opened his door, the appellant used the chopping knife to strike
G at the victim’s face and head, causing three wounds: a 3 cm wound to his G
forehead, a 5 cm wound to his right cheek, and a 4 cm wound to the left
H H
corner of his mouth. The wounds sustained by the victim were not serious
I and he was released from hospital the same day. I
J J
34. Having considered the attack was not premeditated and that
K fortunately the injuries sustained were not serious, the Court of Appeal was K
of the view that an appropriate sentence should have been one of 4 years’
L L
imprisonment. The appeal against sentence was allowed.
M M
35. Comparing that case with the present case, Mr Ng submitted
N N
that in both cases, a chopper knife was used to strike at the victim’s face
O and head. However, Mr Ng acknowledged that PW1’s injuries were more O
severe.
P P
Q 36. Mr Ng finally referred to a non-binding sentencing case Q
HKSAR v Ng How Yee [2025] HKDC 207.
R R
S 37. Mr Ng asked the court to take into account the following S
circumstances:
T T
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
(a) Mr Zhou acted alone;
C C
(b) The assault arose out of an argument and was a result
D D
of Mr Zhou’s outraged emotions;
E E
(c) The offence was not committed in a public place;
F F
G (d) Mr Zhou only struck PW1 once with the chopper G
according to instructions;
H H
I (e) Mr Zhou did not continue to attack PW1 according to I
instructions;
J J
K (f) There is no evidence of permanent serious injury or K
significant long-term impact on PW1’s daily life;
L L
M (g) There was no premeditation or pre-planning; M
N N
(h) Mr Zhou committed the offence out of momentary
O impulse; and O
P P
(i) Mr Zhou is remorseful.
Q Q
38. Mr Zhou has had only one visit from his Mainland wife during
R R
remand because of financial constraints. Mr Zhou truly feels sorry for what
S he has done and has learnt a lesson. He promises the court that he will S
never re-offend. He misses his son and hopes to return to the Mainland to
T T
look after his elderly parents and his family.
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
C 39. Mr Ng asked the court to adopt a starting point of no more C
than 5 years’ imprisonment; and he reminded the court to give Mr Zhou a
D D
1/3 sentencing discount for a plea of guilty in good time.
E E
40. Mr Ng submitted on behalf of Mr Zhou a mitigation letter
F F
written in Chinese by Mr Zhou himself. The contents are generally that
G Mr Zhou sincerely apologizes to PW1; that Mr Zhou is regretful; that he G
promises to reform himself and make himself a new man. Mr Zhou asked
H H
for a chance and an early re-integration into society so he may take care of
I his family and his elderly parents. I
J J
41. When asked by the court, Mr Ng submitted after taking
K instructions that Mr Zhou overstayed his travel to Hong Kong and was K
therefore issued with a Form 8 recognizance pending repatriation back to
L L
the Mainland.
M M
Sentence
N N
O 42. I have seen the two medical reports (P1) and the photo album O
of injuries (P2) submitted by the prosecution.
P P
Q 43. The descriptions of the injuries in the Amended Summary of Q
Facts para 6 as well as the photo album show that there were at least two
R R
strikes with the chopper. I therefore reject the mitigation that there was
S only one strike with the chopper. However, there was no evidence the S
second strike was levelled against PW1 after he had fallen down or after
T T
U U
V V
- 14 -
A A
B B
he was placed in a position in which he was unable to defend himself as a
C result of the first strike. C
D D
44. Section 17 Wounding offence is a serious offence for which
E the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. The usual sentence is between E
3 and 12 years’ imprisonment after trial. Both deterrence and denunciation
F F
are at the forefront of sentencing principles in this type of offence.
G G
45. In this case, provocation, if any, came only from Mr Zhou
H H
who was staying at the subject premises at the courtesy of PW1 who was a
I good friend of Mr Zhou’s elder brother. An attack with or without weapon I
was inexcusable as a return of compliment and could only be attributable
J J
to Mr Zhou’s fiery character. Of course, the subject attack was aggravated
K by the use of a weapon which was a chopper conveniently taken from the K
kitchen. The attack was merciless and came from behind PW1’s head.
L L
Because of the aimed bodily position, the extent of possible injuries was
M unimaginable and could even lead to death. In the result, PW1 sustained M
serious injuries and underwent head and other operations and he had to stay
N N
in hospital for 5 days.
O O
46. Mr Ng said there were no aggravating features. I disagree.
P P
The attack was unprovoked. Furthermore, on arrest and caution, Mr Zhou
Q lied to the police and told them it was PW1 who first armed himself with Q
the chopper and wanted to chop Mr Zhou with it; that he (Mr Zhou) was
R R
merely acting in self-defence after picking up the chopper. This amply
S shows Mr Zhou’s initial lack of remorse (see Ma Tik Lun Dicky para 41). S
T T
U U
V V
- 15 -
A A
B B
47. On the matter of Form 8 recognizance, I do not regard this as
C an aggravating factor here as Mr Zhou was not a torture claimant. C
D D
48. Having considered all relevant circumstances including the
E fact that Mr Zhou acted out of momentary impulse, I adjudge a starting E
point of 4 years and 9 months’ imprisonment to be appropriate and this is
F F
the one which I adopt.
G G
49. Mr Zhou pleaded guilty in good time and thus is entitled to
H H
the full 1/3 sentencing discount. For his clear record in Hong Kong, I
I exercise my discretion to give him a further one month off after the 1/3 I
discount. There are no other mitigating factors of weight to warrant
J J
another sentence reduction.
K K
(Mr Zhou, please stand)
L L
M 50. The sentence is 37 months’ imprisonment. M
N N
O O
( Isaac Tam )
P P
District Judge
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V