有意圖傷人罪的意圖認定？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 黃智雄 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：張澤祐法官、袁家寧法官、朱芬齡法官 - 判決日期：2011年4月12日 ### 案情摘要 上訴人黃智雄被控一項「有意圖而傷人罪」及一項「無合理因由而沒有按照法庭的指定歸押罪」。上訴人承認第二項控罪，但否認第一項控罪，只承認較輕微的「傷人罪」。案件源於受害人與其前同居女友翁女士情變。翁女士與上訴人同居後，受害人於2009年10月15日凌晨到上訴人與翁女士住所樓下，與翁女士發生激烈爭執。上訴人其後手持武器出現，與受害人打鬥，受害人跌倒在地。警員其後拘捕上訴人，並檢獲菜刀及伸縮警棍。受害人指上訴人以菜刀斬傷其後腦，而上訴人則否認使用菜刀，聲稱只用伸縮警棍撥開膠凳及掃向受害人。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於上訴人是否「有意圖而傷人」(wounding with intent)罪名成立，特別是其是否有意圖嚴重傷害受害人身體。控方主張上訴人使用菜刀襲擊受害人後腦，並在受害人跌倒後仍企圖再次襲擊，顯示其嚴重傷害意圖。上訴人則爭辯其僅使用伸縮警棍，且受害人傷勢輕微，並質疑控方證據的可靠性，包括缺乏科學鑑證、證人證供矛盾及關鍵證人未出庭作證。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭維持原審法官的裁決，認為原審法官接納受害人證供並無犯錯。原審法官信納上訴人以菜刀襲擊受害人後腦，導致其頭部撕裂傷。法官指出，以菜刀襲擊頭部此等重要部位可造成嚴重傷害，結合上訴人在受害人跌倒後仍企圖再次襲擊的行為，唯一合理推斷是上訴人有意圖嚴重傷害受害人身體。上訴法庭重申，除非原審法官在事實裁決上明顯出錯，否則上訴法庭不會輕易推翻其裁決，因原審法官在聆聽證供方面更具優勢。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 高等法院上訴法庭駁回上訴人就「有意圖而傷人罪」的定罪上訴，以及就「無合理因由而沒有按照法庭的指定歸押罪」的刑期上訴。原審法官判處的總刑期兩年監禁維持不變。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了上訴法庭在處理針對事實裁決的上訴時的原則，即除非原審法官明顯出錯，否則不會輕易推翻其事實裁決。判決強調了原審法官在評估證人證供可信性方面的優勢，並指出即使缺乏科學鑑證，法庭仍可根據整體證據裁定被告人是否干犯控罪。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: HKSAR v Wong Chi Hung - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Cheung J.A., Yuan J.A., Chu J. - Date of Judgment: 12 April 2011 ### Factual Background The appellant, Wong Chi Hung, was charged with one count of "wounding with intent" and one count of "failing to surrender to custody as required by court without reasonable excuse". The appellant pleaded guilty to the second charge but denied the first, admitting only to the lesser charge of "wounding". The case arose from a dispute between the victim and his former cohabiting girlfriend, Ms. Yung. After Ms. Yung moved in with the appellant, the victim went to their residence in the early morning of 15 October 2009 and had a heated argument with Ms. Yung. The appellant then appeared with a weapon, fought with the victim, who fell to the ground. Police later arrested the appellant and seized a cleaver and an extendable baton. The victim claimed the appellant attacked his back of the head with a cleaver, while the appellant denied using a cleaver, stating he only used an extendable baton to fend off a plastic stool and sweep towards the victim. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue in this case was whether the appellant was guilty of "wounding with intent", specifically whether he had the intent to cause grievous bodily harm to the victim. The prosecution argued that the appellant's use of a cleaver to attack the victim's head and his attempt to attack again after the victim fell demonstrated such intent. The appellant contended that he only used an extendable baton, that the victim's injuries were minor, and questioned the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, citing lack of forensic evidence, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, and the absence of key witnesses. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in the judge's acceptance of the victim's testimony. The trial judge was satisfied that the appellant attacked the victim's back of the head with a cleaver, causing a laceration. The judge noted that attacking such a vital area as the head with a cleaver could cause serious injury, and combined with the appellant's attempt to attack again after the victim fell, the only reasonable inference was an intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The Court of Appeal reiterated that it would not readily overturn a trial judge's findings of fact unless there was a clear error, as the trial judge has the advantage of hearing and observing witnesses. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal against conviction for "wounding with intent" and his appeal against sentence for "failing to surrender to custody as required by court without reasonable excuse". The total sentence of two years' imprisonment imposed by the trial judge was upheld. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirms the appellate court's principle regarding appeals against findings of fact: a trial judge's factual determinations will not be easily overturned unless there is a clear error. The judgment emphasizes the trial judge's advantage in assessing witness credibility and notes that even without forensic evidence, a court can still determine guilt based on the totality of the evidence. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.